India’s SC Collegium elevates HC Judge amid impending sanction for his prosecution
- Vineet Malik
- Oct 26, 2021
- 4 min read
By Vineet Malik | October 26, 2021 | London, England
Ram Nath Kovind, the President of India a fortnight back gave his assent for the appointment of Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More as the new Chief Justice (CJ) of Meghalaya High Court (HC).
The Controversy
The matter transpired in consequence to an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai that confirmed the commission of offence of concealment by an employee of Air India Ltd in 2017. The offence pertained to irregularity and endangering the civil aviation security.
The matter soon thereafter, reached the Bombay HC, as accused challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai.
While, the said matter was heard and proceeded in the HC, KVJ Rao, a former employee of Air India Ltd and respondent in the matter observed a series of erroneous orders passed by Justice More.
Rao alleged, the petitioners harassed him for exposing the wrongdoings in awarding the contracts of Air India Ltd that endangered around 2000 passenger lives on India – Australia air route and violated safety regulations.
Further to such series of incidents, Rao in November 2019 in his 93 page complaint, sought sanction from the President for prosecuting Justice More, then a sitting judge of the Bombay HC.
The plaint stated, Justice More overlooked 22 judgments ruled by the Constitutional Courts that were placed on record by Rao through his written submission.
Among the most pertinent judgment - "Mohd. Hadi Raja Vs State of Bihar and Another" that clearly spelt the ambit of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). ruled by the Supreme Court in 1998, was enough for Justice More to dispense justice.
The plaint against Justice More was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act and several other sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for aiding and abetting the crime and violating Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for allegedly passing orders with oblique intent and thereby ignoring the rule of law to favour the accused who looted the Government funds to the tune of INR 5 Cr. / 50 Million.
The complainant alleged, Justice More granted interim relief to the petitioners on observing them being ‘Public Servants’ and caused prejudice to his rights. The incident happened despite his written submission placed on record. It further debunked the false claim of the petitioners that was also contrary to the law.
As a matter of fact, Air India Ltd till September end was owned by the government of India. The government paid INR 20 Crore / 200 Million from the tax payers money every day to somehow sustain the operations of the bleeding airline under INR 46,262 Crore / 4626200 Million debt.
It was further alleged, Justice More was one of the most oblique Judges of the Bombay HC who committed contempt of the legislature with scant respect for the law, by trying to grant protection to corrupt and criminal officers of Air India Ltd.
Landmark Judgments on Independence of Judiciary ruled by the Apex Court
The Constitution Bench of Seven Judges of the Supreme Court in the matter of S.P. Gupta and Others Vs. President of India and Others in 1981 stated, "The concept of independence of judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the Constitutional Scheme and constitute the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity.
If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the rule of law and under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective.
The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse or power by the executive and there it is absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence and this has been secured by the Constitution makers by making elaborate provisions in the Constitution to which detailed reference has been made in the judgments in Sankalchand Sheth's case".
The Supreme Court in the matter of Prabha Sharma Vs Sunil Goyal and others in 2017 stated, “The judicial officers are bound to follow the judgments of the HC and also the binding nature of the judgments of this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution”.
In another landmark judgment; Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd and another in 1997 ruled by the top court stated, “When a position in law is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position.
Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops”.
“It would be a sad day if Justices who themselves do not follow the Ratio of the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the provisions of the Statute or try to legislate by Court are allowed to go scot free or elevated to higher posts. Due to the above, little faith the common man has in the Judiciary is fast eroding.
Strong action which will act both as an example and deterrent should be taken to send the message down the ranks”, says, Rao.
Honore de Balzac, a French novelist known for advocating social realism in 1800s said, "To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society".
Rao’s One More Attempt
Followed by the news of CJ More's elevation published in ‘The Shillong Times’ on September 18, Rao made another attempt on the next day by addressing a mail to the President, Chief Justice of India, Law Minister, Secretary-Law Ministry and Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Rao pleaded all the above to recall their decision for elevating Justice More as the Chief Justice and instead initiate contempt proceedings against him under the provisions of law.
CJ More was reached out twice by 'The Revelation' to seek his comments through e mail, however he chose not to respond.
Commentaires