The Supreme Court has made a telling comment on the “unwholesome” practice adopted by the kith and kin of judges appearing before their relative judge thereby causing huge embarrassment to the institution and transgressing the golden rule of speedy disposal that forms the cornerstone of effective administration of justice.
It was a case from Chhattisgarh where the defeated Congress candidate Mohammad Akbar from Kawardha Assembly seat alleged “corrupt practice” against the BJP MlA Ashok Sahu in the elections held on November 11, 2013.
Fifteen months had lapsed since the election but the trial against Sahu had not commenced. Bringing this fact to the notice of the apex court, Akbar in his petition referred to Section 86(7) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 that lays down six-month deadline to decide election petitions.
On scrutiny of the case by the apex court it came to light that proceedings before the High Court of Chhattisgarh began on January 29, 2014. The case went on before Justice Manindra M Shrivastava on several dates until on August 14, 2014 when it abruptly got shifted to another judge. The judge hearing the case recused on seeing his own brother Ashish Shrivastava appearing for one of the parties in the case.
The matter had to be re-heard by the new judge who took his time to settle in. But having caused the damage, lawyer Ashish Shrivastava withdrew from the case following a complaint made against him to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The apex bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Rohington F Nariman, a couple of days back, felt that time had come to call a spade as it recorded its displeasure over the tactics employed by the party concerned who deliberately picked a lawyer to embarrass the judge hearing the case.
With him, the blame also rested on the lawyer in question about whom the bench commented, “We feel sad for the noble profession, some of whose members are willing to take part in such unwholesome practices.”
The Court directed the judge dealing with the case to expeditiously dispose the matter and suggested the Chief Justice to consider designating benches to exclusively decide election petitions. Delay in adjudicating these matters, the apex court held, exposed High Court to unpleasant criticism damaging the credibility of judiciary as an institution besides “reducing the adjudicatory process into a mockery of justice”.
More significantly, the bench felt that continuance of a legislative body member who has secured his election by “legally impermissible means” even for a day is “most undesirable”.