![]() ![]() Like for example the award winning panel in Cheshire West and Chester which put huge efforts into engaging young people themselves in an assessment of services for 'looked after children'. The speech seemed to go down well and some of the points I picked up from the blog were the best received.Īfter describing the reasons why the traditional bureaucratic form of scrutiny is having the rug pulled from under the scrutineers' feet, I went on to describe the four features of what might be called 'post bureaucratic' or 'big society' scrutiny.įirst, a much deeper and more imaginative commitment to public and user engagement in scrutiny. We do believe that the Supreme Court will hear the voice of the people expressed all around in last 72 hours on the subject and take corrective steps to prevent miscarriage of justice and restore the confidence and respect that citizens have generally reposed in it.Thanks again for the many helpful comments on yesterday's post. “We are of the firm view that the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic, has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt. ![]() “We also express a deep sense of disappointment about the Supreme Court’s utter disregard of the presence of the learned attorney-general, a highly respected lawyer of great eminence, and its refusal to seek his valuable opinion in the matter, which is mandated even as per contempt law. A silenced Bar cannot lead to a strong court. A Bar silenced under the threat of contempt will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the court. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. “This judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Even some retired judges of the Supreme Court have expressed somewhat similar views. “While Mr Prashant Bhushan as a lawyer of good standing of the Supreme Court may not be an ordinary man, his tweets do not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what is routinely expressed about the court’s working in recent years by many on public fora and on social media. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men’. While some of us may have divergent views on the advisability and content of Mr Prashant Bhushan’s two tweets, we are unanimously of the view that no contempt of court was intended or committed especially when contrasted with the normal standard that ‘Justice is not a cloistered virtue. It is the duty of lawyers to freely bring any shortcomings to the notice of Bar, bench and the public at large. “An independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment. Any tilting of the balance, one way or the other, is deleterious both to the institution and the nation. Mutual respect and the absence of coercion are the hallmarks of a harmonious relationship between the Bar and bench. An independent judiciary consisting of independent judges and lawyers is the basis of the rule of law in a constitutional democracy. “We, the below named, practising members of the Bar in India, have noted with dismay the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mr Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case. The lawyers urged the apex court to refer the August 14 conviction order to a five-judge constitution bench that can hear the matter when the physical functioning of courts resumes. By Monday evening, the number of signatories had touched 1,700. Hegde and Raju Ramachandran, had issued the statement. A group of 41 lawyers, including Dushyant Dave, Vrinda Grover, Arvind Datar, Kamini Jaiswal, Karuna Nundy, Sanjay R. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |