Tag: Supreme Court

Adani Group on hidenbrug report

Plea Seeking Inquiry Into Atiq Killing On April 28

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list on April 28 the plea seeking to constitute an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the killing of Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf in police presence in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud seeking an urgent hearing of his plea and apprised the court that the matter was scheduled to be listed today.
CJI Chandrachud said that many matters could not get listed as five judges were not available as they were unwell.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari mentioned in SC that his plea sought a probe into the extra-judicial killings in Uttar Pradesh.

In his plea, Tiwari sought to constitute an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge to inquire into the killing of Atiq and Ashraf.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari has also moved a plea in Supreme Court seeking to constitute an independent expert committee to inquire into the 183 encounters which had occurred since 2017 as stated by the Uttar Pradesh Special Director General of Police (Law and Order) and also to inquire into the police custody murder of Atiq and Ashraf, gangster-turned-politicians.

Gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf were shot dead while they were being taken to a hospital in Prayagraj on April 15 night amid police presence.

Advocate Vishal Tiwari, in his public interest litigation, has also sought to issue direction to unearth the fake encounters by directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate, collect and record the evidence in the Kanpur Bikru Encounter case 2020 in which Vikas Dubey and his aides were killed by police in the encounter as the inquiry commission could not record the evidence in rebuttal of police version and has filed the inquiry report in absence of that.

“The DARE DEVILS which Uttar Pradesh police has tried to become,” the petition said

The petitioner said that the his public Interest Litigation is against the violation of rule of law and oppressive police brutality being perpetrated by Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner has apprised the court that he has approached the court in a matter pertaining to the Kanpur encounter with Vikas Dubey and said that a similar incident was repeated by Uttar Pradesh police that is encounter killing of Asad son of Atiq Ahmad gangster turned politician and the killing of Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf by private assailants when they were in police custody and were taken for medical examination.

The petitioner said that such incidents are a severe threat to the democracy and rule of law, and such acts are establishments of anarchy and prima facie development of the police state.

He also mentioned that extra-judicial killings or fake police encounters have been very badly condemned under the law and such things can not exist in a democratic society the police cannot be allowed to become a mode of delivering final justice or to become a punishing Authority.

“The power of punishment is only vested in the Judiciary. The police when becomes DARE DEVILS then the entire Rule of law collapses and generates fear in the mind of people (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

LGBTQ Petitioner In SC

LGBTQ Members Should Not Be Stigamatised: Petitioner In SC

By LokMarg

A petitioner on Tuesday argued before the Supreme Court that LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community should not be stigmatised but assimilated with society by allowing marriage equality.

During the hearing, the court remarked that the present matter shall be restricted to the Special Marriage Act and not interfere with personal laws.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners said that the members of the LGBTQ+ shall not be stigmatised and should be assimilated within the society. The assimilation of members of the LGBTQ+ will only happen after state accepts the same-sex marriage, the lawyer argued.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha was hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to ‘marriage equality rights for LGBTQAI+ community’.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta submitted that Hindus and Muslims will be affected and stressed that states should be heard while deciding the issue.

SG Mehta said that the legislative intent throughout has been that marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman.

CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that the very notion of a biological man is absolute which is inherent. SG Mehta responded that biological man means biological man and there is no notion. But CJI remarked that there is no such thing as an absolute concept of biological man and woman.

SG Mehta’s submission was made while he was stressing SC to hear the first Centre application which raised preliminary issues to the present petitions and said that question pending before the top court Bench is to deal with the creation of a socio-legal relationship of marriage. SG Mehta said that this is in the domain of the legislature.

SG Mehta also submitted that there is no legal lacuna in the transgender act and apprised that there is a clarification that none will discriminate against transgender persons. SG Tushar Mehta said that there are provisions of reservation for transgender

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the top court in various judgements such as Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India have already recognised the rights of the members of the LGBTQ+ community.

The petitioner’s lawyer urged the top court that the Supreme Court should now provide positive rights by granting the declaration of marriage equality rights to all people including to same-sex couples.

The members of the LGBTQ+ shall not be stigmatised and should be assimilated within society. The assimilation of members of the LGBTQ+ will only happen after state accepts the same-sex marriage, the lawyer argued.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the intervening applicants, raised the question that what will happen to the adopted child or other various things if the marriage breaks down between the same-sex couple. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said these issues cannot be done in piecemeal. He pointed out that it is a very complex issue which will have ramifications.

Senior advocate Rohatgi argued about the Roman emperor Nero who married twice, two men, at that time. He also apprised the court about widow remarriage which was earlier not accepted by society.

Countering the Centre’s submission, senior advocate Rohatgi said that the choice of an individual is not an “elitist concept” but it is innate and people are born with it like Nero.

Senior Advocate Rohatgi said it can not be criminalized but same-sex couples are being stigmatized.

Advocate Rohtagi made further submissions that the rights of people of the LGBTQAI+ community are already envisaged in the Constitution of India as well as by the top Court over time. He submitted that the top Court is not expected to reinvent the wheel, and rather only seeks an affirmative declaration of rights which are already held to be enshrined within the conspectus of the Constitution in a catena of decisions.

Rohatgi urged the Court that it is the conscience keeper of the Constitution of India and it cannot be a defence for the State to contend that the Petitioners should await appropriate legislation by the Parliament on the issue.

The matter, which is being heard day-to-day, will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Supreme Court

SC Gives Green Signal To RSS Route March In TN

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Stalin-led-Tamil Nadu’s appeal against the Madras high court order allowing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) route marches in the state.

A bench of justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal upheld the Madras High Court order which allowed the RSS route march in the state.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Madras HC order, the top court said, “Therefore, it is not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the Judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review applications.”

“Hence all the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed,” the top court said.

The top court has observed that the main objection raised by the State before the High Court was that after the imposition of a ban order on another organization, law and order problems cropped up in certain places and that the same led to several cases being registered.

The details of those cases are actually furnished in the memorandum of grounds of special leave petition.

“But the Chart provided by the State Government shows that the members of the respondent organization were the victims in many of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators,” the top court said.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appeared for the petitioners Tamil Nadu, in all the special leave petitions and Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the respondent RSS.

Earlier, Tamil Nadu Government told the Supreme Court that they are not totally against the RSS route march but can’t permit it in sensitive locations.

The court was hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal against the Madras High Court order permitting RSS for its route march in the state.

On February 10, Madras High Court directed Tamil Nadu police to grant permission to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to take route marches in various districts across the State on public roads.

Recently the Tamil Nadu Government has challenged two orders of the Madras High Court dated September 22, 2022, and November 2, 2022.

Earlier, Tamil Nadu Government had also said that they will have a dialogue with the RSS on proposed routes for the march as they are not totally opposed to it.

The state government had apprised the court that the government denied holding route marches in the sensitive areas, which have faced PFI incidents and have border areas with disturbances.

The lawyer said, “The government had had some intelligence reports.”

The lawyer for Tamil Nadu Government had stressed that they are not fully opposed to the procession but to the manner in which it is proposed to be done.

“They are not able to control terrorist organizations and that is why they want to ban the route march,” the lawyer said.

Tamil Nadu Government has moved the top court against the Madras High Court order permitting the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to take out its route march in Tamil Nadu on rescheduled dates. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

Don’t Mess Around With My Authority: SC To Lawyer

By LokMarg

“Don’t mess around with my authority,” said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday to a lawyer who was trying to mention a matter to get an early date of hearing.

The counsel mentioned the matter for an early listing of his case, but the CJI said, “The matter is already listed for hearing on April 17.”
The counsel then sought to mention the case before another bench. To which the CJI asked the counsel, “Your date is 17th, you want to mention it before another bench to get a date of 14th?”

The counsel then told the bench that a similar matter was taken up on Monday by the court and some fresh matters were also mentioned.

“If it is listed for 17th it will come on 17th. Don’t mess around with my authority,” said the CJI.

The CJI further told him, “Do not play these tricks with me. You can’t mention it here and then elsewhere for an earlier date.”

Earlier in March, there was a heated exchange of words as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud lost his calm at the Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh while hearing a land allotment matter relating to lawyers’ chambers.

An exchange of words was witnessed when the SCBA President stressed for listing a matter before a bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud.

SCBA President Vikas Singh apprised the court that they are struggling to get the matter listed for the last six months.

When the SCBA President urged for listing the matter, he also said that they have to take it to the judge’s residence if the matter did not get listed.

CJI Chandrachud lost his temper and asked the senior lawyer, “Is this the way to behave?”

“I will not be cowered down by you,” CJI DY Chandrachud said adding that he has been in this profession for 22 years and never allowed himself to be browbeaten by a member of the Bar, litigant or anyone else and will not let that happen in the last two years of his profession.

SCBA President also refused to maintain silence. Thereafter, the court said that it will list the matter on March 17 but not as item 1 in the cause list.

During the mention of cases, the SCBA president urged the court to list the matter early as the matter is not listed for six months. Senior Advocate said that the Appu Ghar land came under the Apex court premise on the petition by the SCBA but the Bar got only one block (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

New Data Protection Bill To Be Introduced In Monsoon Session

By LokMarg

The Centre on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the government will table the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill in the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament in July.

A five-judge Constitution bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar fixed the matter for hearing in August.
Attorney General R Venkatramani, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the new Bill on personal data protection is ready and will be introduced in the Monsoon Session of Parliament.

“The Bill is ready, it just has to be introduced in parliament in the monsoon session at the end of June, July,” the Attorney General said.

To this, the bench replied, “So, it will be under consideration if we list in July…August will be most practical.”

“We take note of the submission of the AG that a Bill which would cover many aspects of the… addresses all concerns will be tabled in the Monsoon Session in July 2023. Considering the circumstances, the matter is to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for a bench to be constituted preferably in the first week of August,” the bench stated in its order.

Counsels appearing for the petitioners requested that the top court list the case earlier as Bill has not been introduced in the Parliament for so long.

“Consultation is a long process… We want a good law to come,” the Attorney General replied.

The bench was hearing pleas filed by two students challenging WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy to share users’ data with parent company Facebook and others as a violation of their privacy and free speech.

Last year, the apex court had asked the government either place before the Parliament, the Bill, which addresses the privacy concerns of users and standards to be followed by WhatsApp or it will begin the final hearing in the case.

Earlier, the Centre had said Indian users cannot be discriminated against by other users of WhatsApp and informed the apex court that the government has already withdrawn the old Data Protection Bill and a new Bill will be introduced in the Parliament.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, had told the bench that Indian users are deprived of their fundamental rights and the same platform operating in other countries, especially in the European Union, has higher standards of privacy and those standards are not prevalent in India.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for WhatsApp, had told the bench that European countries have their own set of laws which are applied there and in India, the company follows the present law.

The Constitution bench was hearing the plea filed by two students — Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi — challenging the contract entered into between the two companies to provide access to calls, photographs, texts, videos and documents shared by users is a violation of their privacy and free speech. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

SC Sets Aside Kerala HC Order On Media One Licence

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Kerala High Court order upholding the decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to revoke the license of news channel Media One, stating that independent press is necessary for a robust democracy and critical views of the channel against the government policies cannot be termed as anti-establishment.

In its order, the apex court also opined that the procedure of the ‘sealed cover’ infringe the principles of natural justice and open justice.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud allowed the Media One plea challenging the Kerala High Court order which upheld the order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to revoke the license of a news channel.

The top court also said the Ministry of Information Broadcasting should proceed to issue a renewal license to the channel within four weeks and the interim order of the top court is allowed to continue until the renewal permissions are granted.

The top court also remarked on the importance of an independent press for better functioning of society, saying that the critical views of media cannot be termed anti-establishment and the use of such term presumes that the press should always support the government.

The court also turned down the submission related to the alleged link of shareholders to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind saying that it is not a legitimate ground to restrict the rights of the channel. The court also noted that there was no material to show such a link.

The apex court also took into account the procedure of sealed cover practice saying that such a practice cannot be adopted to avoid the harm caused by public immunity proceedings. The top court said if the purpose can be achieved through public immunity proceedings then sealed cover proceedings should not be adopted.

The top court had earlier stayed the central government’s decision banning the Malayalam news channel and allowed it to resume broadcasting its content.

The Supreme Court was hearing the Media One plea challenging the Kerala High Court order upholding the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting order to revoke the news channel’s licence.

In the Special Leave Petition preferred by Media One, through advocate Pallavi Pratap, the channel said it has filed the petition under dire and compelling circumstances.

The petition also said it raises seminal questions of law impinging upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as well as the importance of an independent, free and unbiased press guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Centre justified its decision on the ground that the denial of security clearance to the Malayalam news channel ‘Media One’ is based on intelligence inputs, which are sensitive.

The Kerala HC, on February 8, 2022, upheld the order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting revoking the licence of Media One from the list of permitted news channels citing security reasons.

The HC dismissed petitions filed by the channel against the government order.

While dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Kerala HC made it clear that principles of natural justice and interference by the court in cases of national security have a very limited role. (ANI)

Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute

CEC To Be Selected By A Team Of PM, LoP & CJI, Orders SC

By LokMarg

The Supreme Court on Thursday while ordering to set up a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, LOP, CJI for selecting Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners said that it is concerned with leaving the appointments in the sole hands of the Executive.

“We are concerned with the devastating effect of continuing to leave appointments in the sole hands of the Executive on fundamental values, as also the Fundamental Rights, we are of the considered view that the time is ripe for the Court to lay down norms,” the SC said.

A vacuum exists on the basis that, unlike other appointments, it was intended all throughout that appointment exclusively by the Executive was to be a mere transient or stop-gap arrangement and it was to be replaced by a law made by the Parliament taking away the exclusive power of the Executive. This conclusion is clear and inevitable and the absence of law even after seven decades points to the vacuum, said the Supreme Court Constitution Bench.

Court further said that the electoral scene in the country is not what it was in the years immediately following the country becoming a Republic. The criminalisation of politics, with all its attendant evils, has become a nightmarish reality. The faith of the electorate in the very process, which underlies democracy itself, stands shaken.

The impact of ‘big money’ and its power to influence elections, the influence of certain sections of media, makes it also absolutely imperative that the appointment of the Election Commission, which has been declared by this Court to be the guardian of the citizenry and its Fundamental Rights, becomes a matter, which cannot be postponed further, added the court.

Political parties undoubtedly would appear to betray a special interest in not being forthcoming with the law. The reasons are not far to seek. There is a crucially vital link between the independence of the Election Commission and the pursuit of power, its consolidation and perpetuation, said the Court.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India for the selection of Commissioners in the Election Commission of India.

“Appointment of an election commissioner shall be on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha,” said the constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, and also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar.

The Election Commission has to be independent and it is duty-bound to act in a fair and legal manner and abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the directions of the Court said Justice Joseph during the pronouncement of the order.

Justice Joseph also added that the hallmark of a substantial and liberal democracy must be borne in mind, democracy is inextricably linked to the power of the people. The power of the ballot is supreme, capable of unseating the most powerful parties.

Supreme Court on Thursday delivered two verdicts, however, both were unanimous verdicts.

Justice Ajay Rastogi in its separate judgement added that the process of removal of Election Commissioners shall be as same as that of Chief Election Commissioner– Impeachment

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Thursday pronounced its order on various petitions seeking reform in the process for the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India.

On November 24 2022, the apex court reserved its judgement on a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (ECs) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

The apex court was hearing pleas challenging the constitutionality of the present appointment process of CEC and ECs and contended that appointments were being done as per the whims and fancies of the executive.

The petitions sought the creation of an independent collegium or selection committee for future appointments of CEC and two other ECs.

The petitions stated that, unlike the appointments of the CBI director or Lokpal, where the leader of the Opposition and judiciary have a say, the Centre unilaterally appoints the members of the Election Commission.

On October 23, 2018, the apex court referred PILs to the Constitution bench.

While reserving its order, the court has questioned the Centre on the appointment of former IAS officer Arun Goel as the new Election Commissioner at “lightning speed” saying the process was completed within 24 hours. The court had perused the original files brought by the Centre on Goel’s appointment as Election Commissioner. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Manipur DGP

SC Directs To Grant Interim Bail To Pawan Khera

By LokMarg

Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Dwarka Court to grant interim bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera and issued notice to Assam Police and UP Police on Congress leader Pawan Khera’s plea seeking clubbing of FIRs.

Supreme Court said, “Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner will be released on interim bail by Dwarka court.”
SC directed the Dwarka court to grant interim relief to Pawan Khera.

Congress leader Pawan Khera on Thursday said that he is “ready to fight the long battle” soon after Assam Police arrested him in the national capital.

“We will see (in which case they are taking me). It’s a long battle and I’m ready to fight,” said Khera as Delhi Police took him after he was deboarded from an aircraft at Delhi airport.

Delhi Police said that a request was received from Assam Police for assistance in the arrest of accused Pawan Khera in case FIR No. 19/2023, PS Dima Hasao, District Haflong, Assam.

“Based upon the same, requisite local assistance was provided and upon the requisition of Assam Police, accused Shri Pawan Khera was detained from Terminal 1 of IGI Airport and has been subsequently arrested by the IO concerned of Assam Police,” a Delhi Police official told ANI.

“Necessary legal action shall follow,” they added. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Judges Shouldn’t Get Post-Retirement Benefits: Justice Deepak Gupta

Judges Shouldn’t Get Post-Retirement Benefits: Justice Deepak Gupta

By LokMarg

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta on Saturday said that judges should not be given any post-retirement benefits because there would not be an independent judiciary if it continues.

“There should not be any post-retirement benefits. We cannot have an independent judiciary with such benefits,” Justice Gupta said while addressing a seminar on judicial appointments and reforms.

Speaking about the need for independent judges, he said that these judges would have the spine to stand up for themselves and be true to the Constitution.

Recently, the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Justice S Abdul Nazeer as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, within 40 days of his retirement from the top court courted a political row.

Justice Nazeer was part of the five-judge bench that decided the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi case in November 2019 handing over the Ayodhya land to the Hindu party. Justice Nazeer was the lone Muslim face on the Ayodhya bench presided over by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

Justice Gupta also expressed his strong view that there should be a common retirement age for the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Justice Gupta also mentioned overheard things, however, he clarified that he had not verified the facts that it takes normally 100 days for the government to approve the recommendation made by Collegium but the government took a long time to clear the names of recommended Judges, belonging to minority communities.

Terming these facts as a dangerous trend he presumed that if it will follow then they [Judges] will never become Senior Judges, Chief Justices and never reach the Supreme Court.

Former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, however, suggested a judicial commission-like system for the selection of judges and mentioned that there are many existing problems with the collegium system.

He pointed out that the Collegium system creates a democratic deficit and the idea of judges appointing judges does not behove a democratic setup.

Justice Shah shared his experience and said that the collegium distracts judges from their principal work of adjudication and they don’t have proper time to investigate selected candidates.

Justice Shah mentioned the appointment of Victoria Gowri as Madras HC judge as an example of the situation when the process collapses citing her alleged controversial speech.

Justice Shah called for the collegium to operate without bias, which reinforces other characteristics like nepotism and favouritism.

He highlighted that many judges are related to former judges and many are from the upper caste and the middle class.

However, he also expressed his disagreement with the government’s suggestion that the Law Minister can be a part of the collegium discussion and said that it will be dangerous.

Justice Shah said that the government suggesting the names are not only about favouring someone but someone close to their ideology.

He suggested making the system transparent and said the most important part is of publication of names and recording of minutes of meetings of the collegium among others. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Retd CJI UU Lalit Backs Collegium System, Calls It ‘Near Perfect’

Retd CJI UU Lalit Backs Collegium System, Calls It ‘Near Perfect’

By LokMarg

At a time when it is under attack, former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Saturday backed the Collegium system, remarking that nothing is better than this system and also said that reiteration of name by the Supreme Court Collegium is unanimous.

Addressing a seminar on judicial appointments and reforms, the former CJI Lalit shared his experience as part of the Collegium system for two years.

The seminar on judicial appointments and reforms was organised by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms.

“Initial recommendation made by Supreme Court collegium for appointment of judges to the top court and high courts need not be unanimous and could be by majority vote.

But reiteration of name by the Supreme Court Collegium has to be unanimous,” former CJI Lalit said.

Backing up the Collegium, CJI Lalit said, “we don’t have a system better than the Collegium system. If we don’t have anything qualitatively better than the collegium system, naturally, we must work towards making it possible that this collegium system survives.” He also stressed that there is no need for interference in the system.

Calling it a near-perfect model, former CJI Lalit said that they can be infirmities as some recommendations get dropped.

Elaborating on the Collegium system, Justice Lalit shared his experience as part of the system and said that almost 255 names recommended by Collegium during his tenure as a member, were accepted by the government and about 30 odd recommendations were not cleared by govt till he demitted office.

He also pointed out that many judges in this country normally get appointed at the level of the High Court and very few get directly appointed to Supreme Court. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/