Justice Sathasivam’s Appointment by Rajinder Puri SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
My Word Share This Page
Justice Sathasivam’s Appointment
by Rajinder Puri Bookmark and Share
 

The decision to appoint former Chief Justice of India Justice Sathasivam as the Governor of Kerala has sparked a fierce controversy. Even the Congress party is divided and speaking in two voices. Mr. Manish Tiwari has defended the appointment stating that no provision of the Constitution has been violated. Congress spokesperson Mr. Anand Sharma has criticized the appointment because due procedures were not observed which indicated a motivated decision. Both leaders have not questioned the integrity of Chief Justice Sathasivam. Both these Congress leaders and most other critics have missed the point.

Justice Sathasivam’s appointment is not questionable because any laws were transgressed. It is not questionable even because due procedures might have been ignored while making the appointment. It is not questionable because the Judge’s integrity is being questioned. It is highly questionable because in public perception the appointment violates a well established democratic norm.

The government’s move to appoint him as the Kerala Governor has unnecessarily provoked public innuendos that the government is considering him for the post as a reward for his verdict in April 2013 which provided relief to Mr. Amit Shah, the BJP President, then accused of involvement in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter cases.

The circumstances that raised questions about Mr. Amit Shah’s role in those fake encounter cases are formidable. Mr. Shah was Minister of State Home Affairs in Gujarat while Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi was the Home Minister. Half a dozen police officers are presently languishing in jail charged with perpetrating the fake encounters. The main accused police officer has publicly written to the government naming Mr. Shah as the official who ordered the officers to act s they did. In the brief period when the encounters were executed 331 telephone calls between Mr. Shah and the officers had been recorded. The recorded conversation was deliberately erased by a senior police officer who was indicted by a court for the crime. If Mr. Shah had been aware of what the officers did it would make him complicit as an accomplice and abettor and therefore guilty.

Justice Sathasivam who heard the case and exonerated Mr. Shah said: “I deny the offer (of Governor) is a quid pro quo. Any other judge in my position would have given the same verdict.”

There might be no quid pro quo from the Judge's side. But could not government have conveyed a signal to other judges? Therefore in the circumstances does the offer made or accepted render it appropriate? It is an old adage that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. To be rewarded by an authority that was exonerated in cases by the Judge justifies public scepticism about justice being done. There was widespread criticism of Judges in the Jain Hawala Case after they accepted post retirement appointments from a Home Minister who was exonerated by them. The same should hold good for Justice Sathasivam.

5-Sep-2014
More by :  Rajinder Puri
 
Views: 272
Article Comment Goes to show that Judiciary is not holy cow.Protection of contempt of court for them should be withdrawn.
Similarly, requirement of approval from senior authorities for initiating corruption proceedings against government servants also need to be withdrawn.
Re-employment after superannuation does not make sense in a country where we have a sizeable population.
ncmishra
09/07/2014
 
Top | My Word







    A Bystander's Diary     Analysis     Architecture     Astrology     Ayurveda     Book Reviews
    Buddhism     Business     Cartoons     CC++     Cinema     Computing Articles
    Culture     Dances     Education     Environment     Family Matters     Festivals
    Flash     Ghalib's Corner     Going Inner     Health     Hinduism     History
    Humor     Individuality     Internet Security     Java     Linux     Literary Shelf
    Love Letters     Memoirs     Musings     My Word     Networking     Opinion
    Parenting     People     Perspective     Photo Essays     Places     PlainSpeak
    Quotes     Ramblings     Random Thoughts     Recipes     Sikhism     Society
    Spirituality     Stories     Teens     Travelogues     Vastu     Vithika
    Women     Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions