Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

JUDICIAL REFORMS (AREAS OF REFORMS: (COURT (PENDENCY OF CASES : 3 CRORE: …

- - - - JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV
  - - - ACC. TO MALIMATH COMITEE: IMPLEMENTATION OF PLEA BARGAING(IF ACCUSED CRIME THAN CONCESSION IN PUNISHMENT) IN CRIMINAL CASES
  - - - ONLY FEW GRAM NAYAYLAYA HAVE BEEN CREATED
- - - - REJECTED TO AVOID POLITICIZATION
    - - REJECTED : AMBEDKAR GAVE ARGUMENT THERE SHOULD BE NO
        "IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO" (THERE CAN BE NO SATE WITHIN STATE)
      - THERE HAS TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCES; HENCE ASSEMBLY SETTLED WITH 1ST OPTION
        
        APPOINTMENT BY EXECUTIVE
      - THOUGH FOR SAKE OF PROFESSIONALISM IT WAS MADE MANDATORY TO CONSULT WITH JUDICIARY
        
        THUS ASSEMBLY ENVISAGED A DELICATE BALANCE WITH GREATER RESPONSIBILITY WITH EXECUTIVE
  - - - AS JUSTICE KHANNA: ANNOYED EXECUTIVE ON 2 ACCOUNTS
        
        AUTHOURED BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
        
        ALSO IN HEABUS CORPUS CASE : JUSTICE KHANNA WAS DISSENTING JUDGE
    - - EVOLUTION OF COLLEGIUM SYSTEM
        
        1981: S.P GUPT GUPTA(FIRST JUDGE )
        
        SC HELD WORD CONSULTATION IN ART 124 DON'T MEANS CONCURRENCE
        
        HOWEVER IN 1993 SCRA VS UOI CASE(2ND JUDGE CASE)
        
        SC HELD THAT OPINION OF JUDICIARY SHALL BE BINDING
        
        HOWEVER IT SUGGESTED OPINION OF CJI MEANS OPINION OF CJI + 2 SENIOR MOST JUDGES
        
        THIS JUDGEMENT TURNED BALANCE TOWARDS JUDICIARY
        
        FURTHER SC IN 1998 PRESIDENT REFERENCE U/A 143 (THIRD JUDGES CASE)
        
        JUDICIARY IF IT GIVE ADVICE THAN IT HAS TO BINDING IN THIS CASE
        
        SC DEFINED COLLEGIUM SYSTEM:
        
        CJI + 4 SENIOR MOST JUDGES OF SC: 4 OUT 5 (INCLUDING CJI) IS REQUIRED
        
        EXECUTIVE ONLY HAVE SUPENSIVE VETO OVER RECOMMENDATION SEND BY COLLEGIUM
        
        SC IN SCRA VS UOI 2016: (4TH JUDGE CASE )
        HELD NJAC ESTD. BY 99TH CONSA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
  - - - CONSTITUTED SO THAT IT DOESN'T COMPROMISE BASIC STRUCTURE
    - - BECOZ OF JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE GIVEN EQUAL REPRESENTATION 3:3. ALSO ANY TWO MEMBER CAN VETO THE PROPOSED NAME
      - AND WHEREAS NCRWC HAS RECOMMENDED THAT BASIC STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED
      - WORLDWIDE WHERE JUDICIAL COMMISSION EXIST THERE LIES JUDICIAL MAJORITY
      - THUS INTENTION MAY SEEM TO CURB INDEPENDENCE RATHER THAN PROVIDING EFFICIENCY
    - - A MOU CAN BE ESTD B/W JUDICIARY AND GOVT. FOR APPOINTMENTS AS PROPOSED BY SC
      - PROPOSED NAMES CAN PUT ON LAW AND SC'S WEBSITE: FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK BEFORE APPOINTMENT
      - READY MADE DATA BANK ABOUT JUDGES HAS TO BE ESTD. FOR EASY AND HONEST PICKING
      - THERE HAS TO BE BALANCE B/W TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY