JUDGE IN POLITICS? HOW TO REMEDY IT?

 

It was a situation when a sitting Judge of a High Court in 1986 resigned and immediately filed nomination paper for an election. Then I had written in the Times of India (published on Friday July 4, 1986, page 8 – see the paper cut attached) under the caption ‘Judge in Politics' narrating the bad effect on Judiciary as a whole and a remedy to it as follows:-

“JUDGE IN POLITICS

            It has become routine for some of the judges, right from the Supreme Court downwards to enter politics, after resigning from the post. I can understand if they are resigning and filing nomination papers as independent candidates. But the things are not so. They are becoming direct nominees of the ruling party, at a time when some of the leading personalities are denied ticket.

            This clearly means that a supreme high court judge, negotiated with a political party in power. One cannot imagine that without such negotiation, one fine morning he has declared as an official candidate.

            What would be the fate of a case in which he is called upon to decide, where the political organisation (with which he is negotiating) is a party?

            I suggest that those who have some respect for the judiciary of its impartiality and independence, should come out openly against this evil and get the Constitution amended so as to prohibit judges entering politics directly and immediately, after ceasing to be on bench of the Supreme Court or high court, for a specified period and make it punishable as a contempt of the court.   

                                                                                    M. P. JOSEPH

            Bombay.”

 

THIS ISSUE IS EVERGREEN. But people should be aware of these kinds of lacunae in the Constitution of India and some people are taking advantage of it. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to get it remedied. 

I had already dealt with the general practices of fraudulent practices prevailing in the various establishments of the Government of India in my biographical book part-1., 'A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION'. 

{ To get details of my books and blogs, visit home page: https://www.manjaly.net/ }

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DOPT OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dated 11TH September, 2015 ON COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

The GOI, DOPT has issued an OFFICE MEMORANDUM No.25013/0 I /2013-Estt.A-1V Dated Il thSeptember, 2015 detailing the details and procedure to be followed in the case of compulsory retirement under the Fundamental rule and the Pension rules. This is mainly referring to the DOPT’s OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules. It also quote the instructions/precautions issued by the Supreme court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umedbhai M.Patel, 2001(3) SCC 314 as follows:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer."

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

There are also many other cases referred in support of the administration. There are also various technical procedures mentioned in the OM.

But the main lacuna in the OM is that it is silent about the Supreme Court cases went against the Administration not following these instructions.

In reality the purpose of the provision is not followed. If followed, nearly 70% of the total beurocracy would have been vacant and youngsters would have got more chance of employment. The provision is generally used to silence the persons who are not liked by the corrupt administration for personal interest and not the general administration for the sake of public interest as per the instructions of the Supreme Court mentioned above.