Former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium’s name has not been cleared for elevation as a Supreme Court judge by the government which cleared the names of senior advocate Rohinton Nariman, Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Arun Mishra and Orissa High Court Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel for the elevation, reported the Express.
The government has reportedly based its decision on reasons including an adverse intelligence bureau (IB) report and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) files against Subramanium relating to appearing in the 2G scam, and the supposed existence of a taped phone conversation between him and Niira Radia.
Subramanium would have gone on to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had his name been cleared but now the government has the option to sit on his file independently.
Former SC judge VR Krishna Iyer appealed to Modi to reconsider the centre’s stand not to approve Subramanium’s elevation and stop an “indefensible disaster” from happening, reported The Hindu.
The Times of India took a brief look on the precedents set in judicial appointments in India and contrasted the principles with those followed in the US and Canada.
Comments
The reports against him are absolutely laughable. The cbi is absolutely silent as to why after the supposed "2g" incident which raised doubts on his integrity they. Onto used to engage him for cases of public importance such as 26/11 and Bombay blast which he did free of charge.
The ib refers to a phone conversation where what is discussed is a swimming pool membership.
Clearly the only reason why the government has opposed this nomination is because of a perception that GS will be prejudiced against them after his role as an amicus in the sohrabuddin sheikh case. The government should have allowed the elevation instead of getting into a slanging match.
I hope GS withdraws. He really doesn't need this.
For example the article referred to above (click on the link) contains within it an explanation that judges may not be aware of the antecedents of a person they nominate. It ends with an observation that in the future all judges must comply with Marshall's test. An indirect attempt to lend credibility to the governments move
The article is vomit inducing as are other articles written by this journalist because the represent a clear attempt to malign a person on the instructions of somebody else.
I encourage readers to do a google search and see the various articles which have been published about GS and viewers will find that only TOI has left out any reference to sohrabuddin sheikh and has instead said that the government took the decision to preserve the integrity of the sc. Once again an attempt to simply parrot the line of the government
The conduct of the paper is totally shameful and frankly they should apply for government funding. TOI is clearly a paid paper. Very unfortunate
What's more likely is that he personally believes what he's written or is sympathetic to the government's aims, perhaps with reference to GS, which he's free to express in a personal column, however much you or I may disagree with it.
There is absolutely no reason why YOU should defend any allegations against him.
Or, if should, you rather defend all the other malicious and highly offensive comments which so often pass uncensored on your web site.
Comments that are obviously defamatory against lawyers we usually don't publish or try to moderate if able, or remove once they are published if notified, and sometimes I butt in too to contradict something I obviously think is rubbish.
And merely because a comment is offensive or upsets someone, doesn't mean it shouldn't be published necessarily.
Finally, I, like any reader, is surely free to comment and defend anyone I like, just as you're free to defend anyone else. And it's my honestly held opinion that it's most likely *not* paid news, which I think is a valuable and necessary addition to your comment.
You may disagree with his views or believe he's not correct in this subject or that their reporting is biased, but going into ad hominem 'paid news' without any evidence is not cool.
I don't think there is any reason to either [b]trust[/b] or distrust any seasoned journalist, because it is a logical fallacy to not go by the facts, but rely on the length of a journalist's career. A Supreme Court judge had commented recently that he “perhaps” works “at the behest of a motivated lobby”, no?
When I mentioned the word "paid news" rather than referring to the exchange of money, I referred to the broader concept of biased reporting.
I would have agreed with you if in fact the view taken by Mahapatra was published in a private column as a private view. But unfortunately that is not the case. Take for example the following article the link to which is :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/President-clears-Rohinton-Nariman-Adarsh-Kumar-Goel-and-Arun-Misra-for-SC/articleshow/36923725.cms
In the said article a line has been written which states "..... Niira Radia forced the hand of the Narendra Modi government which did not want to take a risk given the trust and faith the highest court enjoys in public eye."
Kian this is not a private article but is actually the purported reporting of facts by Mahapatra. The use of these lines in what is not a private opinion but is the recounting of facts shows that Mahapatra has tried to present a defense of the governments decision which has not been carried by any other paper.
Hence my statement that unfortunately journalists today such as mahaptra have become mere mouthpieces in expressing a view which they are instructed to express. Furthermore the omission to mention sohrabuddin sheikh is clearly a conscious omission by a journalist who is supposed to present all facts and not give them a slant which is in favour of any one agenda
Your defence would have been justified if the articleby Mahapatra was a private column which it is not
Theoretically, there are also other explanations, for that article. I agree that "Niira Radia forced the hand" is editorialising to some extent, but it could also have been an error rather than outright bias from one of the reporters bylined in the story.
I don't know any background, but it could be that a government source told them that their hand was forced, and they included it in the copy without attributing it to a government source, as should have arguably been done. Or maybe the copy desk removed the attribution? Or maybe the copy desk trimmed a reference to the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case because there wasn't enough space on the page?
That's not defending the actual final product, necessarily, but I reiterate that alleging "paid news" in this context without evidence, diminishes your arguably legitimate criticism of the TOI's reporting in this case, even if you claim it's only semantics.
I am sure you know that some papers are controlled by certain political parties - through funding and/or other forms of support and/or based on the dealings/loyalities of the editors with the politicians. I would imagne that the relationship is based on both money/support and loyalities (each sustain the other over the years). So, why won't it be fair to assume "paid news" when a story does not mention a [u]very relevant[/u] fact (which goes against the theme of the story), that most other journalists care to mention? It is [i]twisted reporting[/i] as well, only one does not know what motivated the journalist. I have much respect for senior journalsists to assume their personal bias will prevent them from mentioning a relevant fact that is known to other journalists - such fact will likely be excluded because the journalist is trying, for whatever (political/financial?) reasons, to build a story that they will get brownie points to break. I don't mean to rebutt you - just looking for a journalist's view on this.
Your response would be much appreciated :)
Political bias definitely exists in journalism, not just in India (take Murdoch titles for example).
But I think that should more accurately be called bias rather than paid news.
If you think the TOI stories on GS have been biased, how do you explain that the Economic Times, which is under the same proverbial roof as the TOI, carried an exclusive story yesterday with an anonymous collegium judge supporting GS? If the bias all came from the top, as it allegedly does in Network 18, for instance, then that could have been spiked.
And from what I know about the TOI, reporters have a lot of freedom to report what they want to, if it's news. Maybe occasionally personal bias creeps in, or journos get taken for a ride by sources or get swayed, but all those things whenever they do happen, are not paid news most of the time.
But maybe I'm too idealistic about the profession or too cynical about the realities of reporting.
Ps: Good book worth reading about the realities and flaws of modern day journalism: Flat Earth News.
My comment was certainly addressed to journalism globally, not just India. All social evils exist everywhere, just the scale changes.
On the choice of nomenclature between bias vs. paid news, I can understand and empathize with biased reporting because individual ethics and prejudices may affect even superior court judges. However, I wonder whether some choices to selectively report/exclude facts are based on “personal” bias or “pecuniary” bias. If a reporter hates a politician, his reporting may be biased and I see nothing extremely wrong about it. However, if a senior reporter is motivated by the “larger picture” that concerns his paper / media group’s relationship with the powers-that-be and/or any particular social group it wishes to please, it may be deemed to be “paid news” although no money is actually changing hands for that one piece of twisted reporting – the benefits may be in cash and kind, which flow from time to time. I was only wondering whether journalists will also classify such news as “paid news”. The Economic Times article may have been an attempt to redeem the earlier “twisted story” (or biased story) by another reporter of the same group, as an attempt to mitigate the situation created by reactions. Maybe not. Who knows?
We all like reporters and place freedom of speech up there with personal liberty. Its just that the journalists at TOI are in a rocky boat given that TOI has earned a poor reputation for its ill-famous college rankings, lobbying (induced by funding and/or favours??) for certain groups, and generally not reporting things straight.
Flat Earth News is on my reading list!
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/law-ministry-turns-down-gopal-subramaniums-elevation-as-sc-judge/article6127460.ece
The contrast in reporting is obvious.
From what I know of GS personally and for what it's worth, in my personal opinion, he's a good guy and would probably make a fantastic judge, if someone whom the new government probably wouldn't like very much for a variety of reasons.
It's therefore rather convenient for all these allegations to surface, particularly in the way that they do from 'sources' and whisper campaigns of IB, CBI reports, etc.
And the IB hasn't exactly been showering itself with glory recently or shown itself as an apolitical body after the NGO reports.
My gut feeling is that his name has been mentioned in a few reports gathering dust in intelligence archives somewhere, which have now been dug out or copy-pasted into a new report, with isolated portions leaked strategically.
If anything, the GS debacle makes a good case for reform of the collegium system to provide more transparency to the process, which is at risk of becoming politicised if the new government will behave as some expect it to. Therefore, the collegium should stand firm, unless some proof of wrongdoing is clearly established, rather than just reported as hearsay or quoted from some reports of indeterminate object and origin.
Alternatively, this could also be about something completely different to 2G or his alleged political leanings.
My 2 cents, almost completely based on personal gut feeling and very few facts.
If anything, the GS debacle makes a good case for reform of the collegium system to provide more transparency to the process, which is at risk of becoming politicised if the new government will behave as some expect it to. Therefore, the collegium should stand firm, unless some proof of wrongdoing is clearly established, rather than just reported as hearsay or quoted from some reports of indeterminate object and origin.
[/quote]
Kian, how little do you know of the development of law in India relating to judicial independence to make such a partisan (and somewhat offensive) statement that calles into question *YOUR* personal prejudices and makes all your 'articles' on LI suspect?
Have you bothered to red the Law Commission of india's views on the need to reform the Collegium system??? Does the mere fact that the Executive exercises more of a say in appointments mean that persons with doubtful integrity will be appointed ??? What about the USA where Federal Governments appoint SC judges based on blatant bias - are they any the worse for it????
I believe you have a law degree. Please try to use it once in a while.
And don't think with your gut. Not a good idea.
Particularly during the last government, with some of the Congress' terrible policy decisions, a muscular Supreme Court, as it was under Kapadia for instance, was one of the few silver linings in the political system.
With the new government, which enjoys such a landslide majority that it could easily turn into a dictatorship in the next few years if it wanted to, I would prefer a strong and independent judiciary to act as the only real check and balance left in the political system (despite it not having lived up to that potential during the Emergency for instance).
The US quasi-political judicial system of purely partisan appointments is a little messed up, in my opinion, though even there some of the most progressive and important parts of American society can be credited to SCOTUS.
So, call me an anarchist if you will, but being a lawyer and being aware of the delicate nature of our freedom and democracy, in my gut, I would nearly always prefer to trust a judge, warts and all, than a democratically elected career politician in any country.
Particularly during the last government, with some of the Congress' terrible policy decisions, a muscular Supreme Court, as it was under Kapadia for instance, was one of the few silver linings in the political system.
With the new government, which enjoys such a landslide majority that it could easily turn into a dictatorship in the next few years if it wanted to, I would prefer a strong and independent judiciary to act as the only real check and balance left in the political system (despite it not having lived up to that potential during the Emergency for instance).
The US quasi-political judicial system of purely partisan appointments is a little messed up, in my opinion, though even there some of the most progressive and important parts of American society can be credited to SCOTUS.
So, call me an anarchist if you will, but being a lawyer and being aware of the delicate nature of our freedom and democracy, in my gut, I would nearly always prefer to trust a judge, warts and all, than a democratically elected career politician in any country.[/quote]
sorry Kian but what exactly do you not trust. Do you not trust the IAS/IPS exam whose results have just been announced? Do you not trust the postman? Do you not trust the chief of the air force? Do you not trust the Mother Dairy milk booth? do you not trust the airport? Do you not trust the Competition Commission? Do you not trust the CVC? The CAG ? Do you know that the GOI makes appointments to all these positions.
The "collegium" system which only the uninformed appreciate is a self-propagating creature which was formed to prevent an abuse of power but which has grown to become an uncontrollable behemoth. Considering the nature and power the superior court judges wield it is a joke how closed the appointment system is and how non-scrutinisable it is. Look at CLAT, UPSC, look at even the appointment of the CVC - all are open to review / challenge and have been. Why not judges?? What is wrong if the Government appoints or has more say in appointments? J Nehru had the biggest majorities in Indian parliamentary history -- how many of the judges he appointed were defective?
You still could not give a response the the US Supreme court. They produce stellar judgements and are fully 'partisan' but why is there no concerted effort being made to change that system. Even in the UK (your own country) I believe the Crown appoints judges after consultation with experts, jurists. Nowhere is there such an absurd system to shield a service or cadre from any external interference.
At the end of the day the judiciary exists for the government and not the other way round. Hope you (and any judges out there who might read this) can follow this.
I think that politicians can not be given completely free reign to rule and their power needs to be fettered and subject to constraints. In the Indian democracy, as it has evolved, other than the SC, there is no body that has been able to do so even minimally. Parliament and opposition politics often doesn't actually produce good laws or democratic debate.
And I don't think the interpretation of fundamental rights should be as overtly political as in the US, where it has been a fortunate historical accident that things have turned out decently. The UK's JAC is not run by the Crown but is an independent body - do feel free to Google - though the UK bench has other problems such as being dominated by old white men.
The judiciary is a bedrock to democracy that should partly be insulated from the day to day cut and thrust of electoral politics to some extent. Does that mean judges are unaccountable to some extent? Yes. Does it mean that judges can be out of touch with real world concern? Sometimes. Does it mean sometimes they'll retard development (i.e. shutting down mines to protect environment or disenfranchised)?. Yes. Will they sometimes act undemocratically? Yes.
All these things are sacrifices worth making to prevent the potential tyranny of the majority in any democracy.
However, don't misunderstand - the collegium system is in need of reform, desperately. The risk is that almost any government, including the previous and this one, would naturally love to replace it with a system where it is just another branch of the executive, as the post office or other examples you've listed. And government and probably reform and GDP would be stronger for it.
Without the bench and the bar pushing back, however, the collegium's replacement could end up being worse than what we have and risk fundamentally changing the nature of the institution, which is arguably one of the few pillars of the state that my gut still trusts more often than not (being a lawyer) if push comes to shove.