The appeal filed by the Supreme Court against the of the decision of the Central Information Commission in the judges’ assets declaration case has been discussed on this blog here and here. In this article in the Frontline, I have discussed some problems with the Supreme Court’s position. Full texts of the decision, the appeal filed by the SC and the Written Submissions filed by the first Respondent in this case may interest our readers.
RTI – Judges’ assets declaration case
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
The voluntary resolution of judges may not have legitimacy in the strict Kelsenite terms- as there doesn’t exist any higher norm which may possibly be used for the enforcement of such resolution. However, in old Weberian sense it asserts a kind of ‘social legitimacy’. Thus, within the community consciousness such resolution does have a legitimacy. And the failure of the court to adhere to it hampers and dampens the ‘social legitimacy’ of the apex court itself.
At another level one need to ask the question that if such resolution has no legal force at all, then, were the “justices” on some kind of high tea while making such resolutions. How do they cull out time for such empty resolutions when the docket explosion stares in the face of the nation.
Lastly, the little care which the judiciary, as an institution, shows towards their own ‘voluntary’ resolutions also make one suspect of the respect they hold for the resolution which the Preamble of the Constitution ordains them to adhere to!