Advocates can argue in Tamil, says judge

 The Hindu :MADURAI, July 20, 2013

Justice Manikumar initially resisted, but Madurai Bar Association convinced him to recall his judgment

A judge of the Madras High Court Bench here on Friday stated in the court hall that advocates could present their cases in Tamil.

Justice S. Manikumar made the oral declaration after the advocates raised a furore over his recent judgment dismissing two cases after G. Bhagavath Singh, an advocate, insisted on presenting them in Tamil.

In one of the cases, Mr. Singh appeared for Ayisha Banu, who claimed that her husband Bakeer Maideen’s passport was retained illegally by his employers in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Maideen was begging on the streets of Mecca, she claimed, and sought a direction to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, the Commissionerate of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils and the Tuticorin Collector, to ensure the safe return of her husband.

In the other case, Mr. Singh appeared for Rajan, a teacher from Kanyakumari district, asking for a direction to the executive officer of Karunkal Panchayat to approve his house plan. According to Mr. Rajan, the executive officer had neither accepted nor approved the plan for his house, built in 2006, despite several reminders.

When the cases came up for hearing last week, Mr. Singh insisted that he wanted to present the cases in Tamil, but Justice Manikumar denied him permission and dismissed them, citing Constitutional Law and Supreme Court judgments.

The dismissal orders were widely criticised by advocates. The members of the Madurai Bar Association said they had a meeting with Justice Manikumar a few days ago and he agreed to recall his judgment.

Earlier this week, the case was listed in Justice Manikumar’s court for hearing. However, Mr. Bhagavath Singh refused to present his case before the judge. On Friday, around 30 advocates from Madurai Bar Association, headed by its secretary A.K. Ramasamy, were present in the court hall when the case came up for hearing.

They urged Justice Manikumar to make a declaration that advocates could argue in Tamil in the High Court. Subsequently, the judge made the declaration. The advocates opted for an appeal in both the cases, saying they did not want his orders recalled.

Keywords: Madras High Court Bench, Justice S. Manikumar court ,language, Tamil,, oral declaration

Justice Sathasivam sworn in as Chief Justice of India

PTI | Jul 19, 2013, 09.58 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Justice P Sathasivam was today sworn in as the 40th Chief Justice of India (CJI) by President Pranab Mukherjee.

He took over the post from Justice Altamas Kabir, who served as the CJI for over nine months.

Justice Sathasivam, 64, took oath in the name of God at a brief ceremony at Darbar Hall of Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Vice President Hamid Ansari, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, her Rajya Sabha counterpart Arun Jaitley, NDA Working Chairperson L K Advani, CPI leader D Raja, several Union ministers were present at the ceremony.

Justice Sathasivam was elevated to the Supreme Court in August, 2007 and would demit office on April 26, 2014.

Like his predecessor, Justice Sathasivam is opposed to scrapping of the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and high court judges.

But at the same time, he has admitted that there are drawbacks in the collegium system and efforts can be made to overcome the shortcomings to ensure transparency.

"There are drawbacks, I accept. But these drawbacks can be settled," he had said yesterday.

Born on April 27, 1949, he enrolled as an advocate in July 1973 at Madras and was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Madras high court in January, 1996.

Later, he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana high court in April, 2007.

No quota in super-specialty posts: SC

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 19, 2013, 05.13 AM IST


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked caste-based reservations in appointments to faculty posts in premier All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) saying constitution benches of the court had repeatedly and concurrently warned against reservation at super-specialty level. 

"There were certain services and posts where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts. In such, situations, it cannot be advised to provide for reservations" a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices S S Nijjar, Ranajan Gogoi, M Y Eqbal and Vikramjit Sen said quoting from the judgment a nine-judge bench delivered in Indira Sawhney case. 

The court quoting from Indira Sawhney verdict, which had upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in Central services, said: "In certain services in respect of certain posts, application of rule of reservation may not be advisable in regard to various technical posts including posts in super specialty in medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical posts." 

The Faculty Association of AIIMS and Resident Doctors Association, which had challenged the reservation scheme being applied to appointments in premier institutes faculty positions, had argued that that all these posts required qualification in a super-specialty course. 

AIIMS, however, cited Eklavya tale of Mahabharat and supported continuance of reservation for appointments in faculty positions in AIIMS saying without quota the Eklavyas would always lose to Arjun who had the backing of the traditional system. The Centre, too, supported the stand of AIIMS. 

What prevailed upon the bench headed by the Justice Kabir was the Indra Sawhney case, which while stressing the relevance and significance of merit at the stage of initial recruitment, had cautioned that reservation too implied selection of less meritorious person. 

While giving due weight to AIIMS and government argument that SC, ST and OBCs needed social uplift through reservation, the bench said it could not overlook the plausible view that "the very concept of reservation implies mediocrity and we will have to take not of the caution indicated in Indra Sawhney's case." 

After reiterating the caution and subscribing to the judicially settled view that there could be no reservation in the super-specialty posts, the bench said: "We impress upon the central and State governments to take appropriate steps in accordance with the views expressed in Indra Sawhney's case and in this case, as also the other decisions referred to above, keeping in mind the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution." 

Article 335 of the Constitution provided: "The claims of the members of the SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of Union or of a State."

CJI Altamas Kabir’s final judgment comes as boon for private medical colleges

SC quashes common entrance test for admission in medical colleges

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 19, 2013, 01.52 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the single-window National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) dealing a body blow to uniform admission norms for MBBS, BDS and MD seats in all medical colleges and allowing private medical colleagues to frame their own admissions norms and charge, in many cases, stiff capitation fees.

A three-Judge bench by two to one majority struck down the NEET as unconstitutional and ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) had no power to issue notifications in 2010 to regulate admissions to 271 medical colleges, 138 run by government and 133 under private management offering 31,000 MBBS and BDS as well as 11,000 MD seats.

The NEET had been welcomed by students and parents because of transparency and the respite it offered from the ordeal that the aspiring doctors had to endure until last year when they had to file multiple applications and shuttle between cities across the country to take entrance tests medical colleges would hold with no co-ordination among them. It had also curbed the room for the promoters of several medical colleges to extort hefty capitation fees.

Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, on his last day before retirement, and Justice Vikramjit Sen formed the majority to hold that the notification mandating NEET for all violated private medical colleges' rights to carry on business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and the constitutional guarantee under Article 30 to the minority community to set up and manage educational institutions.

Justice A R Dave did not agree and, in a strong dissent, stressed that there was no proper discussion on the draft majority verdict which appeared to have been rushed because the CJI was to retire in a few days.

Justices Kabir and Sen hat the MCI did not have power to force a single entrance test for controlling admissions to the medical colleges as it had been created only for the purpose of ensuring "excellence of medical education in India".

"We also have no hesitation in holding that the Medical Council of India is not empowered under the MCI Act, 1956 to actually conduct the NEET," the CJI said articulating the majority view.

Though the only edition of NEET, which was held this year, stands quashed, the admissions already made on its basis would not be affected by the judgment, the court clarified. The clarification was meaningless as far as admissions to the private medical colleges is concerned as these institutions had already taken exemption for this year from the purview of NEET.

While it business as usual for the private medical colleges, the restoration of the old scheme for admission into medical colleges for the poor and meritorious stands. 

The All India Quota entrance examination offered them a hope to bag a seat in a medical college. Under this, the states would contribute 50% of the seats to be decided for allocation to students who clear the single entrance test.

The majority judgment on Thursday took away what was actually given four years ago by another bench of Justice R V Raveendran (since retired) and Justice A K Patnaik after long deliberations during which it had focused on the benefit of single-window entrance test for all medical colleges.

In 2010, the bench of Justices Raveendran and Patnaik had strived to bring together the MCI and CBSE on the same page for conducting NEET. The bench was convinced that a single entrance test would save poor and meritorious students , by sparing them the physical and financial stress of having of travel from one city to another to appear in multiple entrance tests in the hope of bagging a MBBS, BDS or MD seat in a college.

What Justices Raveendran and Patnaik had expressed in 2010 found reflection in Justice Dave's dissent. In differing with the views of Justices Kabir and Sen, he appeared to rely on the old proverb "justice hurried is justice buried".

Against a 173-page judgment by the CJI, Justice Dave penned a 35-page dissent and said: "As the Chief Justice is to retire within a few days, I have to be quick and therefore, also short. Prior to preparation of our draft judgments we had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time and therefore, I have to express my different views..."

Justice Dave said: "it cannot be said that introduction of the NEET would either violate any of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners or even adversely affect the medical profession. In my opinion, introduction of the NEET would ensure more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession."

"Let us see the consequences, if the apex bodies of medical profession are not permitted to conduct NEET. A student, who is good at studies and is keen to join the medical profession, will have to visit several different states to appear at different examination held by different medical colleges or institutes so as to ensure that he gets admission somewhere," he said.

On the other hand, "The NEET will facilitate all students desirous of joining the medical profession because the students will have to appear only at one examination and on the basis of the results of the NEET, if he is found suitable, he would be in a position to get admission somewhere in the country and he can have the medical education if he is inclined to go to a different place."

Quoting MCI counsel Nidesh Gupta, Justice Dave said he had informed that some medical colleges, who are more in profiteering business rather than in the noble work of imparting medical education, take huge amount by way of donation or capitation fees and give admission to undeserving or weak students under one pretext or the other.

Justice Dave said: "if only one examination in the country is conducted and admissions are given on the basis of the result of the said examination, in my opinion, unscrupulous and money minded businessmen operating in the field of education would be constrained to stop their corrupt practices and it would help a lot, not only to the deserving students but also to the nation in bringing down level of corruption."

Collegium stalls outgoing CJI’s attempt to push judge’s appointment to SC

TNN | Jul 19, 2013, 03.28 AM IST

NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented step, Chief Justice of India (CJI) AltamasKabir had — a fortnight before his retirement — proposed before the Collegium of four senior-most Supreme Court Judges for recommending to the Centre to appoint a high court Chief Justice as Judge of the apex court.

The CJI had on July 2 requisitioned a meeting of the Collegium comprising himself and justices P Sathasivam, GS Singhvi, RM Lodha and HL Dattu. Once they assembled, the Collegium members were told by the CJI about the proposal.

But, the CJI was told that the President has signed the warrant of appointment designating justice Sathasivam as the next CJI and fixed July 19 for administering oath to him.

Since, the warrant of appointment had come, it would be against precedents and tradition for the outgoing Chief Justice of India to push for appointment of Judges to the high courts or the Supreme Court.

Not convinced, Justice Kabir sought individual opinions of each member of the Collegium on the tradition and precedent thrown at him to stall his last proposal as the head of the judiciary. 

All four senior-most judges concurred that it would not be proper for the outgoing CJI to push for an appointment to the Supreme Court especially when his successor had been issued warrant of appointment.

He was told that in the past the outgoing Chief Justices had in fact requisitioned the meeting of Collegium but it was only to address an emergency situation, like an ad-hoc Judge's tenure in a high court coming to an end prior to the new CJI taking oath warranting extension or denial thereof.

Unconvinced by the logic presented to scuttle his proposal, the CJI, it is learnt, flared up accusing the Collegium members of "ganging up" against him. 

With the overwhelming majority in the Collegium not favouring breaching the tradition and precedent, the CJI had no option but to drop his proposal.

Sathasivam for more women, SC/ST judges

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 18, 2013, 01.15 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice-designate P Sathasivam on Wednesday said he would favour relaxation of stringent selection criteria to see more Judges in SC and HCs from among women, SC, ST and OBCs, in a not-so-subtle pitch for caste/community/gender-based quotas in the recruitment of judges to higher judiciary. 

"There is no provision for the reservation for women and backward classes in appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. For long, there had been very little space for these sections in the higher judiciary. Appointing them as Judges in theSupreme Court and the high court without compromising the basic merit criteria would reflect country's social diversity and would send a healthy signal to the society at large," justice Sathasivam told TOI just two days before he takes oath as the 40th Chief Justice of India (CJI). 

The CJI-designate said, "I am all for relaxing the selection criteria. As the next Chief Justice of India it is my responsibility to convince the apex court collegium the need for giving meritorious among the backward classes a small helping hand." 

He elaborated by saying that while backward class members who have chosen a career in law and aspiring to be Judges must help themselves by equipping themselves to satisfy basic requirements for selection as a judge before demanding their pie in the form of representation in higher judiciary, the collegium of SC judges who decide appointments to higher judiciary can help by relaxing the criteria in such cases. 

"Those who have strived to work hard despite facing hardship, we can give some concession," he said. 

Justice Sathasivam explained that the relaxation could be in the form of lowering the criteria adopted for other candidates, which included consideration of their gross annual income and the rate of case disposal in the last three years. 

There has been a dearth of women Judges in the Supreme Court, it has had just five of them, two sitting women judges — Justices Gyan Sudha Mishra and Ranjana P Desai included — in the 63 years of its existence. It was in 1989 that the Supreme Court got its first woman judge in justice Fathima Beevi. Her appointment was followed by Sujata V Manohar and Ruma Pal. 

India got her first dalit CJI in K G Balalkrishnan in 2007 but selection of judges from backward classes had been rather infrequent. 

Justice Sathasivam spoke strongly against the political affiliations influencing the court judges must eschew political connections and leanings. "They should not be politically linked," Justice Sathasivam said of those aspiring to be judges. 

Justice Sathasivam will take oath as CJI on July 19 and have a tenure of little over nine months. He said he would write to all chief justices on this issue and seek their views.

Two women judges among HC's top 3

A Subramani, TNN | Jul 18, 2013, 03.44 AM 

CHENNAI: The Madras high court has become the first in the country to have two women among the top three judges, who form the prestigious collegium. 

With the retirement of Justice Elipe Dharma Rao on July 14, Justice R Banumathi ascended to the number two position in the high court while Justice Chitra Venkataraman became the third senior-most judge.

 A collegium comprises the top three judges and its most cherished constitutional duty is to shortlist eligible advocates and subordinate judicial officers for appointment as judges of the court. 

The court also has the maximum number of women judges among all HCs. Of the seven women judges, two -Justice Chitra Venkataraman and Justice K Suguna - were chosen from the bar, while the other five - Justice Banumathi, Justice R Mala, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan, Justice K B K Vasuki and Justice S Vimala - worked their way up from the subordinate judiciary. 

The remarkable career of Justice Banumathi, who is the second senior-most judge in the court, began in 1988 when she was appointed district judge at the age of 33. She became the first judge to be appointed directly as district judge. She headed the judiciary in important districts like Coimbatore, Chennai, Vellore, Pudukottai, Tirunelveli and Salem. In 2003, she was appointed judge of the high court. She is likely to be made the chief justice of a high court in three-four months, sources told TOI. 

It will be another first when Justice Banumathi assumes charge as the executive chairperson of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on Thursday. 

An official notification to this effect was issued by the home department on July 14, the day Justice Elipe Dharma Rao retired. She will be the first woman to head the legal services authority, which is in charge of promoting and conducting lok adalats, legal awareness campaigns, free legal aid and other service activities throughout the state. 

Justice Chitra Venkataraman is a tax specialist. Born on April 22, 1952, she was appointed additional judge of the court on December 10, 2005 and was made permanent judge of the court on April 20, 2007.

Tears flow at farewell for Justice Elipe Dharma Rao, senior high court judge

A Subramani, TNN Jul 13, 2013, 03.31AM IST

CHENNAI: It was a tear-laced farewell for Justice Elipe Dharma Rao, who is to retire on July 14, marking the end of an eventful and hectic 14-year tenure as judge of two high courts.

From a barefooted student doubling up as an agricultural worker in an Andhra Pradeshvillage, he came a long way to retire as the senior-most dalit judge in the country. "I hail from a village without even bare minimum facilities. I had to walk barefoot to reach school and return home. During 'leisure time' I worked as an agricultural labourer. It has taught me the true sense and meaning of life," he said, responding to encomiums heaped on him by Tamil Nadu advocate general A L Somayaji.

Turning nostalgic, Justice Dharma Rao apologized to his family members "for not sparing any time for them." He paid glowing tributes to his wife Padma Pushpanjali and said: "I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention the sacrifices made by my better half in taking the entire family burdens on her shoulders. She never ventured to disturb me with family issues, however serious they may be, when I am engaged in my duties as judge. She has managed all the family affairs single-handedly at the cost of her health to make my long stint as a judge happy and contented. So far, I have done little to reciprocate. But, hereafter I shall try to make amends to her during the rest of my life."

As for his children, he said from their childhood onwards "they understood that my shoulders are not free for them to play, but already burdened with the godly affair of rendering justice. They never distorted my attention. I missed them a lot, and it is time to say my sincere apologies to them."

Earlier, Somayaji said Justice Dharma Rao had been endowed with a supreme knack of getting at the core issue in any litigation even if papers ran into several volumes. He has asplendid memory of case law and junior members of the Bar were always treated with courtesy and generosity by the judge, he said.

During his tenure here, several sensational judgments including the one relating to elephant corridor and ban on tourist homes/resorts inside the tiger reserve in the Nilgiris, were delivered by him. If north Chennai is dust-free, it has to thank Justice Dharma Rao, as he had barred the Chennai port from handling dusty cargo such as coal and iron ore. Through his verdicts he ordered cast-based census, and called upon cops not to cross the 'Lakshman Rekha' and indulge in extra-judicial killings.

Dharma Rao was born on July 15, 1951 at Karpa village in Ainavali Mandal in East Godavadi district of Andhra Pradesh. He obtained his BL degree in 1978, and was made an additional judge of the Andhra Pradesh high court on May 17, 1999. He was transferred to the Madras high court in January 2006. He was acting chief justice of the Madras high court twice - from April 29, 2010 to June 10, 2010, and from December 22, 2012 to February 6, 2013. With his retirement, the number of judges in the court has gone down to 43, as against the sanctioned strength of 60.