Day: January 23, 2021

Ramani Wiped 50 Years Of My Hard Work With One Stroke: MJ Akbar

Let me begin with a disclaimer: I have no affiliation with eminent and senior journalist MJ Akbar of any kind and I have never met him in person nor am I affiliated in any way with his political party BJP of which he is a member and earlier was Union Minister of State also for External Affairs. But ever since I gained senses I have been a regular reader of his scholarly articles in most prestigious magazines like “India Today” among others and so also in many eminent newspapers. I used to enjoy reading his learned articles most when I was in school and in college even though later also I made it a point to always read his articles! I was most shocked to learn when his name figured in a controversy and when his name was dragged in it. To be brutally honest, it was the worst shock that I could ever have imagined in my life!

Needless to say, MJ Akbar has always enjoyed an impeccable reputation and even his worst critic could never have questioned his unimpeachable conduct, his impeccable reputation until Priya Ramani raised serious questions marks on his conduct. MJ Akbar through his counsel argued that it was journalist Priya Ramani who “targeted him” for which he was prompted to file the defamation complaint.
It may be recalled that MJ Akbar was left with no option but to resign as Union Minister of State for External Affairs even before the charges have been proved against him in any court and he too became a victim of “MeToo Media Trial”! Hang him if he is guilty but condemning him even before charges have been framed against him in any court and tarnishing his “impeccable reputation” which he has earned in his entire life in just few seconds cannot be justified under any circumstances! MJ Akbar could have easily continued as a Minister but he preferred to resign and first challenge those who tarnished his impeccable reputation in court.
Bluntly put: Is MJ Akbar not entitled to the benefit of the due process of law and legal defence? Should he not be given a chance to prove his innocence? There are many senior eminent women journalists like Tavleen Singh who have always appreciated him and have said that they have never experienced any such “alleged misconduct” from him but this is never highlighted in the media! Tavleen Singh is most famous for calling a spade a spade and she never fears anyone! How can all this be ignored?
Most recently, a woman journalist deposed in court in his favour and admired his upright approach in always dealing with her. Only the numbers are highlighted that 16 or 17 women have levelled most serious charges against him but I want to ask: Why they never dared to lodge FIR against him in any police station of India till now? Why they kept quiet for so many years? Why inspite of being professional they chose to keep quiet? Were they not aware of their legal rights?
Going forward: Why did they not immediately complaint? Why they didn’t spill the beans earlier? Why was there a consensual conspiracy of silence? Why were they lured to keep quiet? Why they compromised themselves just for getting some material benefit? Are they not guilty just like an adulterous women? 
It also cannot be ignored that Union Minister Pon Radhakrishnan asked: “If someone makes an allegation that such a thing happened when the incident happened we were playing together while in class 5. Would it be fair? The ‘MeToo’ movement had sullied the image of the country. Will it be right for men to start making similar accusations like them.” Even Union Minister for Tourism K Alphons had cautioned against frivolous complaints by “insincere” people with an agenda. He said that, “People should be extremely careful when they raise an allegation. Yes, if something inappropriate has taken place, it should be in public domain. There should not be any doubt about it, but I hope frivolous complaints are not raised by insincere people to fix people whom they do not like.”
We heard earlier how KWAN founder Anirban Das attempted suicide after sexual misconduct allegations but was saved by an alert police team patrolling the Navi Mumbai bridge! MJ Akbar has vowed to fight for sake of his reputation till the end! There are very few who care for what “mental trauma” a man undergoes when false allegations are levelled against him and he is defamed by “media trial” to the fullest even before charges are framed against him in any court! This must stop once and for all as it mutilates and maims to pieces a men’s integral right to reputation and right not to be defamed and denounced even before any court takes cognizance of the charges levelled against him! 
“You do me favors, I do you favors 30 years later
lets call it “me too”
A strong woman does not wait 30, 20, 10 years to speak up, she slaps him on the first “bad touch” and knocks him out
Don’t hide your weakness, the favors in returns that you enjoyed and the work you got by “I was too scared” cry now
You were scared to say NO then because its hard to stand up for what is right and you were scared to loose your status and position in the work place, so YOU CHOOSE to accept the molestation and went back for more …Its very easy to play the abla nari card later and gain sympathy
The Shakti does not wait later to speak up, she silences the evil on spot…
My thoughts on this nonsense of me too
I don’t have me too stories …anyone who tried got a tight slap then and there and I was never afraid to walk out with my head held high ..be it a Job or relationship!
“strong women don’t have me too sob
Stories, they have I gave him thappad
(slap) back short essays”.”
– Geetanjali Arora in Sunday Times of India dated October 21, 2018
Every person must applaud, admire and appreciate Geetanjali Arora for what she has written so courageously on 9 October at 5.35 pm which got published on October 21 in one of the most reputed newspapers of India – The Times Of India! Why should women be treated always as victims? Why should women keep quiet for many decades and then speak up if she herself has nothing to hide from the world?
Does men have no right? Should only women have all the right to speak up whenever she likes? Very few know that a woman had levelled serious allegations against eminent film actor Jitender about an act allegedly done by him 47 years ago when she was very young but the Himachal Pradesh High Court didn’t accept it and rejected the petition as it said that the time limit of lodging the complaint within the limitation period of 3 years was not complied with! 
Anyway, coming to the case at hand, while appearing before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey, senior women advocate Geeta Luthra further argued that Ramani didn’t feel the need to check with the Ministry, department or PRO to confirm if he had resigned before tweeting that he did. “You wiped out 50 years of his hard work with one stroke,” submitted Luthra while rebutting the submissions of Ramani’s lawyer, senior counsel Rebecca John. John had on a previous occasion submitted that, “It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it for the public good… If the imputation of sexual harassment is in good faith and for public it is not defamation. It is not defamation if the imputation relates to something that touches a public question.”
While contesting this submission, Geeta Luthra quipped: “Good faith would have been if you had any evidence. It can’t be for public good. Public good doesn’t mean you will malign someone’s image. Public good is when you’re making a statement then you have to do it with responsibility.”
Most significantly, Geeta Luthra very rightly pointed out while referring to a sexual harassment incident that, “Just by calling it my truth, doesn’t make it a truth… you haven’t proved whether you have made a call to the complainant, you haven’t proved that you met (Akbar).” Luthra also further pointed out that, “This version is a figment of imagination and not truth..After 30 years you are trying to bring something without any evidence. It is all in the air.”
While stating that “whether you make a whisper that a person is a thief or a cheat” it has to be backed with evidence. Luthra told the court that, “You have to have empirical evidence which can stand scrutiny in the court of law. There is no such evidence in this case. There is no investigation.” 
As it turned out, Luthra then read out the statement of a witness, Joyeeta Basu who had testified from Akbar’s side. Basu, Luthra claimed, was called a tutored witness. Calling Basu a respected journalist, the counsel said she was a natural witness unlike Ramani’s witness. Luthra also added that, “Her witness is her friend who doesn’t know anything about the alleged incident.” 
Needless to say, for Akbar, the defamation complaint was filed as the “malicious tweets by Ramani” had “destroyed my reputation in the eyes of the society”. Luthra also read out another testimony of one Akbar’s witnesses, Sunil Gujral to assert that his reputation was “impeccable”. Gujral was stated to have known Akbar for a long time personally and professionally.
MJ Akbar through his counsel Luthra rightly submitted that, “Harm is done by the man who instigates and ignites the first flame.” The submissions were made by Luthra before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey. While reading Ramani’s testimony, Luthra told the court that, “She wrote an article without naming anyone because it was a piece of fiction..You said you didn’t name him because he didn’t do anything. The tweet doesn’t say that I’m saying all this because so many women are speaking up.” 
Moreover, it cannot be lightly dismissed that MJ Akbar also told the court that Priya Ramani “deliberately, intentionally and maliciously” destroyed evidence by deleting the Twitter account. Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra told the court that, “This strange argument that this Twitter account, the court didn’t tell me to save so I didn’t. How can one take a defence like this?” Luthra also told the court that Ramani knew there was a criminal complaint pending against her. 
More to the point, Geeta Luthra also pertinently told the court that, “These are all tweets. They were all primary evidence. Can she destroy evidence…another criminal case can be made out. I would have wanted to cross examine her. This whole thing is destruction of evidence which is not something which is not viewed very seriously…suppose the court wanted to see it. Fact is that everything has been deliberately destroyed to subvert the cause of justice.
Furthermore, Luthra also told the court that, “All evidence which was part of the trial..deliberately, intentionally, maliciously has been destroyed by deleting the Twitter account. These lies have left me defending my reputation in the last few years. It is unpardonable. I wonder at what kind of cost has it come to you. You have damaged a person’s 50 years of reputation.” Luthra also said that, “There was no overt physical attack.”
Adding further more, Luthra said that, “Here also she is self contradictory. She said it was sarcasm then takes alternate defence. Sarcasm is also defamation. Did he do anything or not do anything..same can’t have a non-sarcastic meaning and still be sarcastic…First she says first fourt para are about her. But then talks about ‘shared experience’. Whom did she interview? This has to be before the cause of action. She says it’s my story..what is she trying? Every sentence when examined is contradictory to the next.” 
     <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Truth be told, Akbar had filed a defamation case in 2018 stating that Ramani’s allegations were viewed and read by several people online and he received numerous calls from friends and colleagues from the media and political sphere. For having reportedly suffered “great humiliation” and his reputation being “severely tarnished” he had sought court’s intervention. Luthra reiterated that Ramani had some other motive and “there is no public interest. There is no good faith.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Without mincing any words, Luthra said that, “What she (Ramani) said does not mean predator. Many people in positions of hierarchy are more powerful but you can’t call them a predator. There are many words to describe a junior-senior relationship.” Luthra also told the court that, “You cannot turn around and say that you are calling a person the media’s biggest predator…You are a journalist. You have to be responsible ..You can’t write as if without any sense of responsibility or accountability..It doesn’t matter what people say post facto. Harm is done by the man who instigates and ignites the first flame. She is not an eye witness. It is fabricated. She is an interested witness.” Luthra told the court that the meaning of the word predator is a person who has propensity for violent sexual behaviour. </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">What has really shaken me most is the enlightening editorial written by Ramesh Thakur who is Professor of Public Policy, Australian National University in ‘The Times Of India’ dated November 9, 2018 titled “Believe Evidence Over Gender” which begins by coming straight to the point saying that, “The #MeToo campaign began as a long overdue effort to call out men abusing positions of power and authority to exploit vulnerable women sexually, but then morphed into some settling of scores for dates gone wrong. In the age of social media, #MeToo swarms of screaming mobs, and bird-dogging, the wildest accusations are amplified instantaneously across the whole world. This makes the charge themselves a powerful political weapon.” He rightly suggests the following to check mud slinging matches: “First, ensure anonymity for both or neither. Name only the guilty party after the trial. If the verdict is inconclusive, keep all names confidential. Second, treat both accuser and accused with sympathy, respect and courtesy. Evaluate the testimony of both with equal skepticism, ask questions accordingly, and weigh their statements against the facts. Everyone deserves a fair hearing: no one deserves to be believed in the absence of evidence; and shifting evidence and timeline to suit the narrative warrants over suspicion. Third, match the prosecution and penalty for false accusations to those of conviction. This will put in place a powerful deterrent. Without consequences, the political weaponisation of false charges will continue. Above all, believe evidence over gender. Senator Susan Collins was branded a rape apologist for doing so.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It was in 2018 that we saw how in a landmark judgment titled ‘Joseph Shine v Union of India’, the Supreme Court led by Justice Dr DY Chandrachud very rightly decriminalized adultery as it felt that sex with consent cannot be crime and he overruled his father’s decision rendered earlier in Sowmithri Vishnu in 1985! Law has to change with time. Even the definition of rape needs change and sex with consent should not be termed rape. A woman after having consensual sex with a men for many years cannot and should not be allowed suddenly to scream rape and play the victim card by weeping!  The moot question that arises here is: Why the women promptly didn’t lodge complaint if she was forced to enter into sexual relationship? Also, why always men alone be condemned? What if it was women who lured men into sex? Why always women version is to be believed? Why should women not be punished and sent to jail for at least an year if she levels false allegations against a men solely for denigrating, damaging and destroying his untarnished reputation in front of the world? Why should she not be made to pay compensation to him for tarnishing his reputation in front of the world? Why can’t the laws be suitably amended in this regard? Why should only women have right to reputation and right not to be defamed and denounced? Why do we ignore that our laws and Constitution treats men and women as alike? Why should men be deprived of the basic fundamental tenet of law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It cannot be lightly dismissed that in a criminal case, where the accused will forfeit his liberty if convicted, the standard of proof required to convict him not just is higher but also needs to be proved “beyond all reasonable doubt”. It is high time and all news channels and media groups should refrain from just glamourising “#MeToo” movement and should instead always convince so called “female victims” to approach the court at the earliest and not after 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years and fight the legal battle which would seek evidence for both prosecution and proving innocence instead of just levelling the most damning allegations after many decades which only exposes her to “defamation suits” to get real justice for herself! Also, it must be ensured that the identity of both the women levelling the allegations and the men against whom allegations are levelled are not revealed in public until the case is decided at least in the lower court! Such cases too must be decided at the earliest and not after many years as the reputation of both the women and the men suffers enormously which only robs them of their right to privacy which just recently in KS Puttaswamy case has been declared to be a fundamental right!</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It is high time and now women too must be jailed and punished for levelling false allegations. Section 498A of IPC and so also Domestic Violence Act is many times misused and so there must be strict provision for punishing women if her allegations turn out to be false. Women is now no less inferior to men in any field. Then why should she be given blank cheque of exemption if she levels false charge against any men? Even men has the right to reputation and dignity just like women which gets severely compromised when women levels false and wild allegations against men and so should never go unpunished under any circumstances!</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">I am certainly not against women getting justice who have suffered at the hands of men but I also simultaneously favour the reasoned and logical stand that, “Men too have right not to be defamed and denounced without facing strictest legal scrutiny in accordance with due procedure of law”. Every Indian women must always abide by what Geetanjali Arora who is herself a female has said which I have quoted right at the beginning! Women are beating men in studies and outsmarting them in every field then why should they take things lying down when it comes to sexual offences?</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Why not lodge complaint at the first place instead of just indulging in character assassination after many years as part of “#MeToo” campaign and getting defamed yourself also and making a huge public spectacle of yourself? Now it is for women to decide for themselves which course of action they would like to adopt but now they must stop laying the victim card and abide in totality by what Geetanjali Arora has said so rightly and never tolerate any sort of any misconduct from any men under any circumstances whatsoever! It is high time and now women must be actually treated at par with men by not always allowing women to play always the “victim card” and encouraging her to always take men head on whenever any men dares to violate her physical or mental integrity in any manner instead of waking up after decades! There can be certainly no denying it!</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Needless to say, MJ Akbar’s case is still pending in court and we have to keep our fingers crossed till the case is finally decided. But certainly the immeasurable pain, anguish and heart bleed that MJ Akbar faced is clearly apparent and one only hopes that justice is done with him and I am sure that judiciary will vindicate the unflinching faith that he has posed in it! </div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">s/o Col BPS Sirohi,</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A 82, Defence Enclave,</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh</div>

To Constitute AIJS Would Be The Greatest Step Since Independence

Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin penning down my forthright views by first and foremost expressing my utmost happiness to note that Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since ages! AIJS is the crying need of the hour and must be debated, discussed and deliberated fully so that all best features are included in it and all possible drawbacks are deleted before it is finally created. There can be no two opinions on it.

It delights me to no end to see that Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing a function to celebrate the completion of 50 years of the Delhi High Court on October 31, 2016 set the cat among the pigeons when he sought a debate on creating AIJS which has been hanging fire right since independence. It is most tragic to see that AIJS has always been mocked at by the ruling party in Centre. Even now if AIJS is constituted, it will be the greatest step since independence.
It needs no rocket scientist to figure out that how much our judicial system which is currently on the verge of collapsing due to a whooping number of pending cases will benefit if AIJS is created soon. While I fully support the creation of AIJS, I don’t support reservation in judiciary at all. I certainly would welcome the inclusion of people from the lower strata of society into the judicial system but only when they enter by their own merit and I know that they can do it on their own. They are no less than others in anyway.
Did Dr BR Ambedkar make a name for himself by coming up through reservation? Selection should only and only be on merit alone. There should be no other criteria for selection. No compromise should be made on merit under any circumstances, come what may!
While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform you all that I am not at all against Dalits, oppressed, poor and people coming from lower strata of society entering AIJS. But that should not be at the cost of merit under any circumstances as most unfortunately we have been seeing in other services since last 70 years even though Dr Ambedkar had proposed reservations only for 10 years! In fact, I treat them just like others and very strongly feel that they too can do whatever they want just like others! Why should they be treated worse than disabled?
Who is stopping Centre from imparting free coaching to Dalits and all those coming from lower strata of society? Why can’t more scholarship be given to them? Why can’t they be coached by top successful persons of the field for which they are trying? Why can’t they be allowed free expense for giving as many exams as they like? They can be helped in thousands of ways other than reservations. Why politicians favour only reservation as the best possible way? Did Tina Dabi who topped IAS thus becoming the first Dalit to become a topper did by availing reservation benefit? No, by her merit she made it to the top!
How long will this cancer of reservation be allowed to fester and harm the unity and integrity of our nation endlessly? What precedent are politicians and PM setting by always talking about reservations only and never talking about finishing them as Dr Ambedkar wanted them to finish after 10 years only?
Reservation is the worst form of tool and only spreads hatred in society. Also, once it is inserted in the system, it is never thrown out as we can see in our own country where Dr BR Ambedkar who is the founding father of our Constitution wanted reservation only for 10 years but what an unbeatable irony that 70 years later we still see no end of reservations rather many States have increased it beyond 50% which only draws the ire of Supreme Court. This should never happen in AIJS.
For my esteemed readers exclusive benefit, let me tell them that it has been widely reported in the media that the Centre is getting ready to set up All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) by March 2022, according to a proposal submitted by the law ministry to the Union Council of Ministers. This was reported in ‘The Economic Times’ newspaper dated 2 March 2020 with heading “All-India Judicial Service Likely by March 2022”. So it is not that this cannot be worked out in the near future! It was also pointed out in this newspaper that, “The ministry in its recent presentation to the sectoral group of secretaries informed that AIJS was one of its top priority matters. The reports of the 10 sectoral group of secretaries were reviewed by PM Modi and the Council of Ministers. The biggest challenge is to get all states and high courts on board.” 
Needless to say, we must applaud PM Modi’s courage and conviction to do what no PM has ever dared to do even though they too supported it – creation of AIJS. PM Modi has called for debate and discussion on creating AIJS but I very strongly feel that Law Commission has time and again recommended the creation of AIJS, former CJI too have recommended, Parliamentary Standing Committee also has recommended and National Judicial Pay Commission too has recommended then why so much of inordinate delay over it? It must be cleared soon now. After the Modi’s Cabinet clears the landmark proposal, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) will be entrusted with the AIJS examinations. The Delhi High Court asked the government in an earlier petition by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to decide on creating the IJS. It will again hear another petition by him for creating an IJS. 
Be it noted, the move for an AIJS didn’t curry much favour with the higher judiciary in the past. The Chief Justices Conferences in 1961, 1963 and 1965 favoured the creation of an AIJS, but the proposal had to be shelved after some states and high courts opposed it. What should have happened way back in 1960s that we don’t see happening even in 2016 and it is only now after PM Narendra Modi has spoken on its dire need from a public platform and that too while addressing a function of lawyers and judges to celebrate the completion of 50 years of the Delhi High Court that some bright ray of hope has finally emerged.
To put things in perspective, subsequently, the Constitution was amended in 1977 to provide for an AIJS. The proposal was again floated by the UPA government in 2012 when it got it vetted by a committee of secretaries and prepared a cabinet note. But the draft bill was shelved after fierce opposition from high court chief justices. In 1972, the then Chief Justice of India had again endorsed the creation of AIJS.
Enough is enough! Now not any more! No more endless wait for AIJS! If Centre is really serious to combat the more than three and a half crore cases pending in lower courts all across the country, it has just no other viable option left before it but to start the AIJS. Ad hoc measures like re-employing retired judicial officers won’t serve much in the longer turn even though it may provide some relief. It cannot be a permanent cure. Centre must realize this which it has failed to realize in last 70 years.
In the absence of AIJS, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the required judge strength in district courts and high courts. The available judges are unable to clear the huge backlog of over 30 million cases. Inspite of all this, IJS not started till date and mere opposition by few States/High Courts gave a lame excuse to successive Union Governments to just sleep over the matter.
Let me reveal here that in his PIL, Ashwini Upadhyay, who is also a BJP spokesperson contends fiercely that the establishment of IJS under the Article 312 of the Constitution of India, is not only necessary to provide equal opportunity to all prospective Advocates in spirit of Article 16 but also essential to secure fundamental right of fair trial and speedy justice to the citizens in spirit of Article 21. IJS has not been established in spite of constitutional provision and despite the Apex Court strongly endorsing it, he states in his petition. He further states that, while most government department has ‘All India Service’ recruits, the Judiciary is the only setup that does not have a national level selection process to attract the best prospective Advocates. “When IAS officers can be allotted State cadres and adjust to local requirements, why can’t IJS officers? Every organ of the State including the judiciary needs to be accountable to the public. People need to know how judges are appointed, what criteria they have been evaluated on. Many judges appointed by the collegiums or by political intervention may have been brilliant, yet their recruitment process is questionable. Judiciary should reflect social reality and the country’s diversity,” the petition reads.
Significantly, the Delhi High Court asked the government on July 11, 2016 to consider a lawyer’s representation seeking setting up of a All India Judicial Service on the lines of the Indian Administrative and Police Services. A Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of the then Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal asked the Ministry of Law and Justice to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation and inform him. In his plea, Ashwini Upadhyay said the step to set up the AIJS was “long overdue and has been hanging fire for ever five decades”. He also pointed out that, “Most government departments now had ‘All India Service’ recruits, the Judiciary does not have a national level selection process to attract the best possible talent”.
Before proceeding ahead, it would be imperative to quickly recapitulate the important events associated with AIJS. It will help us broadly in understanding this subject better. The list of important events are as follows: –
03-01-1977: AIJS inserted into Article 312 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976. The purpose of the constitutional amendment was to ensure uniformity in standard of selection and to attract the bright and young talent in judiciary so that fair trial and speedy justice made available to every citizen throughout the country.
27-11-1986: Law Commission submitted in its 116th report titled “Formation of All India Judicial Service” to the Union Law Minister and explained in details the importance and urgent need of All India Judicial Service.
10-4-1995: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) 1022 of 1989, All India Judges Association v Union of India, directed the Union Government to take immediate measures for setting up the All India Judicial Service. The Union Government sought the views of the State Governments and High Courts on constituting the All-India Judicial Service before moving a resolution in Rajya Sabha.
10-2-1997: Union Government submitted a status report n constituting the All India Judicial Service in the Apex Court. Out of 25 states, 08 states endorsed AIJS, 08 states conditionally agreed upon AIJS, 07 states disagreed on AIJS and 02 states not responded. Out of 18 High Courts, 04 High Courts endorsed AIJS, 04 High Courts conditionally endorsed the AIJS, 03 High Courts disagreed with AIJS and 07 High Courts not responded on AIJS.
24-10-2009: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India endorsed the All India Judicial Service in his inaugural address in a conference titled “National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards Reducing Pendency and Delays” in Delhi. 
25-10-2009: Conference titled “National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards Reducing Pendency and Delays” unanimously adopted the resolutions presented by Union Law Minister for establishment of All India Judicial Service and increase in the strength of judges by 25% to reduce the pendency of cases from 15 years to 3 years.
19-05-2014: Hon’ble 41st Chief Justice of India Sh. R.M. Lodha on the eve of assuming charge reiterated the need of the All India Judicial Service. He said: “Setting up of All India Judicial Service, being planned by the government on the lines of the IAS and IPS for recruiting judges for subordinate courts, should be given serious thought. A national consensus is lacking as some states have raised reservations on the framework of the Indian Judicial Service. Those states should also be brought on board.”
It must be emphasized here that the Law Commission of India has four times – in its 1st, 8th, 77th and 116th reports called for Indian Judicial Service. The Apex Court has twice – first in 1991, then in All India Judges Case (1992) endorsed the creation of AIJS. It is imperative to ensure fair selection of incumbents and to attract bright and best law graduates to judiciary.
Be it noted, Centre too strongly felt that to prevent the fresh law graduates from rushing to the all enticing private and corporate sector, it is imperative that All India Judicial Service be started immediately and they too are made eligible just like we see in case of Civil Services. Presently, what we are seeing is that the best talent is wasting no time in jumping on the bandwagon of corporate and private sector who is ever ready to hire them at attractive prices. To stop this to a great extent, it is all the more imperative that AIJS be started immediately without any more delay!
Most significantly, it cannot fbe lightly dismissed that three most eminent Judges in the annals of the Apex Court – Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Justice JS Verma and Justice MN Venkatachaliah gave their joint views on the constitution of All India Judicial Service as follows: “We agree with the urgent need to constitute the All India Judicial Service envisaged by Article 312 of the Constitution of India; at par with the other All India Services like the IAS, to attract the best available talent at the threshold for the subordinate judiciary; which is at the cutting edge of the justice delivery system to improve its quality. Moreover, the subordinate judiciary is important feeder-line for appointments to the High Courts. The general reluctance of competent lawyers to join the Bench even at the higher level adds an additional urgency to the problem. AIJS will in due course of time, also help to improve the quality of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The modalities for creating the AIJS to achieve its avowed purpose, and the necessary constitutional changes and the legal framework can be worked out after acceptance of the proposal in principle.” 
No less significant is the irrefutable fact that the First Law Commission of India, headed by learned MC Setalwad, with the benefit of the opinion of the then Chief Justices of India KN Wanchoo and Justice MC Chagla and eminent jurist Nani Palkhiwala among others, had made a strong recommendation for the constitution of an All-India Judicial Service, like the IAS and IPS. The felt need for such a service increased several fold in the last 57 years since that recommendation was made. 
It is worth noting that in its 77th Report presented by the Law Commission of India to the then Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, it was noted in Para 9.6: “At the same time, we are of the view that the suggestion to have an All India Judicial Service of the same rank and same pay-scales as the Indian Administrative Service should receive serious consideration. According to article 312, as now amended, Parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more all-India services (including an all-India Judicial Service) common to the Union and the States. We are conscious of the fact that a school of thought and many States are strongly opposed to the creation of All India Judicial Service. The objection is mostly based upon the consideration that since the proceedings before the subordinate courts would be conducted in regional languages, members of the higher judicial service hailing from other States would not be in a position to efficiently discharge their functions. This difficulty can be obviated if, like recruits to the Indian Administrative Service, the recruits to the All India Judicial Service also undergo a training period of two years. During that period, they can acquire also familiarity with and mastery of the regional language of the State to which they are to be allocated after the completion of their training period. The requirement about practice at the bar may perhaps have to be waived for recruitment to All India Judicial Service, as they will be recruited at a comparatively younger age. It should, however, be essential that the competitors are graduates in law.” 
Para 9.6A of this very 77th Report further notes: “Another reason which should weigh in favour of the creation of the All India Judicial Service is the attraction that an All India Service holds for bright young graduates, including law graduates. The result is that many of them compete for and are selected for the Indian Administrative Service. If the All India Judicial Service is created with the same rank and pay scale as Indian Administrative Service, the Judicial Service would hold perhaps greater attraction for bright law graduates. The Judicial Service in such an event would not be denuded of talented young persons. The Law Commission presided over by Shri Setalvad also felt this difficulty and observed that an important factor which detracts from the attractiveness of the judicial service is the inferiority of the status of a judicial officer compared with that of the executive officer. The Law Commission in this connection referred to the following observations of an experienced Chief Justice: –
“One reason why meritorious young men or young practitioners of some standing keep away from the judicial service is the comparative inferiority of the status of district judicial officers vis-a vis officers of the district executive. Formerly, the district judge, like the district magistrate, used to be a member of the Indian Civil Service and its position in the District was superior to that of the District Magistrate. Under the present system, the district magistrate is a member of the Indian Administrative Service which is a service of an all-India character, while the district judge is a member of the higher judicial service which is a State service. The difference in the category of the cadres to which they belong is reflected in the status they occupy in relation to each other and in the estimation of the public vis-à-vis the district judge feels small and is treated as a person of little consequence. Nor can the district judge attain the sense of independence which he might have acquired, if he had not been under the administrative control of the State Government in regard to his service.”
It must also be brought out here that Parliament Standing Committee endorsed the AIJS in its 64th Report (Para – 50). The Report says: “All India Judicial Service has been envisaged under Article 312 of the Constitution of India. The Committee expresses its concern over the delay in its creation. The Committee insists that All India Judicial Service may be created without further delay to attract best talent to the subordinate judiciary from where 33% of the judicial officers are elevated to the Bench of High Courts. Reservation as per existing policy of the Government may be made applicable in All India Judicial Service.” 
It is also worth pointing out that the first-ever National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC), headed by Justice K Jagannatha Shetty who is a former Judge of the Supreme Court and who submitted its report in November, 1999 too recommended constitution of All India Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges as per provision of Article 312(3) of the Constitution of India. The NJPC mooted that the District Judges, directly recruited and promoted, should constitute the AIJS. Seniority of All India Judicial Service will be on All India basis and as per the ranking in the select list. The inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promoters will be determined according to the date of allotment of promotion. Such direct recruit must thus be annexed to the respective State Judicial Service within the three-tier system. At present, there are only three All India Services i.e. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS). While the first two were inherited from British Raj, the IFS is the only All-India Service which was created after independence. It was constituted in 1966 under the All India Service Act, 1951 by the Government of India.
It is high time and now as PM Modi has himself said that the setting up of AIJS must be debated, discussed and deliberated upon before finally transforming it into reality. But it must be done soon. It should have happened right at the time of independence but 74 years later we see it still has not materialized! No delay any longer!
It must be underscored that uniformity in standards for selection will definitely improve the quality of different High Courts and will minimize the scope of partiality, arbitrariness and aberrations in judicial selection and simultaneously the quality of dispensation of justice will improve considerably right from the top to the bottom, as it essentially hinges upon the quality of judges recruited. It is the larger public interest that will be served if AIJS is created and also the interest of fair trial and speedy justice. The recruitment of Judges right from the entry level should be handled by an independent agency just like UPSC and can be named National Judicial Service Commission (NJSC).
It would be the job of NJSC to ensure that only and only the best talent selected through open competition is selected into AIJS thereby ensuring fair and transparent selection process just like IAS, IPS and others are selected into Civil Services by UPSC. Also, there should be comprehensive training of 2-3 years after selection in AIJS to be undergone in National Judicial Academy as we see in Bhopal.
We see court cases not ending even after more than 50 years. This completely erodes and tears apart the otherwise irrevocable faith of people in getting justice from courts. In foreign countries like USA, UK and Canada cases are decided very soon. But in India it is exactly the opposite. This must change if we want to project the image of India as a global destination centre for investment. That can happen only when cases are decided in time. Fair, fast and uniform justice keeps the people’s faith ingrained in the system which is so important for the successful functioning of any democratic country. Access to fair, fast and uniform justice is deeply rooted in the concept of democracy and regarded as a basic human right. 
For cases to be decided in time, we need to have adequate number of judges which in turn is possible only if AIJS is started at the earliest. There is just no other viable option available and Centre must grab it with both hands and do the needful so that people at large benefit the most from it for whom justice is really meant. Only such a meritocratic service with open competitive examination and 2-3 years of comprehensive training to all the trainee judges and assured standards of probity and efficiency would be able to ensure “Fair Trial and Speedy Justice’ to citizens in spirit of the Article 21. Unnecessary delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in judicial system which is most dangerous. Fragmentation of faith has the effect potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where justice may become casualty. This will only usher in lawlessness which we can allow only at the cost of our own peril!
Needless to say, Opposition too must play its role well by cooperating in ensuring that the Bill for AIJS is passed with thumping majority in both Houses of Parliament. It must be noted that the Union Government cannot do anything unless the Council of States in this behalf passes a resolution to this effect, which is a mandatory requirement for creation of the same as also specified in Article 312. Centre must move a resolution in this regard without further delay. Delay of 70 years is quite a long delay by itself. Now no more alibis of any kind.
It is well accepted by thinkers, philosophers, academicians and jurists that if fair, fast and uniform justice is to be secured to all the citizens, and equality before the law and equal protection of the law has to be ensured, India needs the best talent in the judiciary. Needless to say, the quality of justice dispensation will ameliorate considerably right from subordinate courts to the Apex Court by initiating the AIJS and by establishing a NJSC like UPSC which is of seminal and pivotal concern. 
To sum it up: It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible. This in turn is possible only if there are adequate Judges. Adequate judges can be made available only if they are recruited in large strength through AIJS just like we see in case of IAS, IPS, IFS and other Civil Services. This alone explains why I mince no words to state emphatically that, “To constitute AIJS would be the greatest step since independence”. It brooks no more delay anymore now! I am sure that PM Narendra Modi would take further necessary steps to ensure that AIJS is given the green signal and after getting it passed in Rajya Sabha with the cooperation of Opposition as we saw recently in case of GST is soon brought into action! It is the young generation especially those who have just graduated or are about to graduate in Law in any part of India that will benefit remarkably by leaps and bounds if PM Narendra Modi takes this landmark and momentous decision anytime soon! I only hope that it does not again turn out to be an endless wait for them also as we saw most unfortunately in the past! Let’s hope fervently that history will not repeat itself again!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Recent Research in Migration and Gender Issues

 

Call for Book Chapters Submission

The Editorial Team of EDUindex invites you to participate in the upcoming book by submitting a 2000-words book chapter for the peer-reviewed e-Book with ISBN that will be published at EDUindex.

Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:

This edited book is designed to address several problems of Migration and Gender studies:

  • Women’s empowerment in action
  • Forced labour in different countries
  • Gender equality and social policy
  • Authoritarianism and gender issues
  • Gender, violence, health, harassment, abuse
  • Challenges of modern slavery and human trafficking
  • Challenges of women’s and labour migration during the COVID pandemic
  • Rights of male and female immigrants in host countries and challenges of immigration policy
  • Political issues and women’s quotas in political parties worldwide
  • Migration issues of women and men in different countries
  • Marriage and its issues worldwide
  • Women in war and conflict: struggle, resistance, and security
Submission deadline: 10th February 2021

Benefits of Publication?

There are many direct and indirect benefits of book chapters publication:
  1. .eCertificate to all authors
  2. Get published in a month
  3. Add your book chapter in Resume and API.
  4. Get the membership of EDUindex free.
  5. Connect and collaborate with other researchers across the world. 
  6. DOI to published book
  7. Book will be available on Google Books, EDUindex Books, and Amazon. 

Book Chapter Submission Guidelines:

Book Chapters must be written in British English, typed using Times New Roman (normal style and font size 12), and in MS-Word. Page size should be A4, single column with 2.0 cm margin on both sides with single line spacing. The body of abstracts should be divided into 4 sections: background, methods, results, and conclusions. Book chapters should include the title, name & surname of authors, affiliation, country, e-mail, phone number, and keywords. Book chapter content up to 2000 words, with the theme related to topics of MIgration and Gender Issues should be submitted to the following email address by 10th February 2021: editor@eduindex.org