The Trolley Problem and Judicial Decision-Making in India: Balancing Law, Morality, and Consequences

 Conceptual Foundation of the Trolley Problem

The trolley problem, a classic ethical dilemma, involves a hypothetical scenario where a runaway trolley is headed toward five people. The decision-maker must choose whether to divert it to a track with one person, sacrificing one life to save five. This thought experiment contrasts utilitarianism (prioritizing outcomes) and deontology (adhering to moral duties). Philosophers like Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson used it to explore the doctrine of double effect—distinguishing between intended harm and foreseen but unintended consequences.

Print Page

Supreme court Judgment on Judges Pay and pension dated 19 May 2023

All India Judges Association v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sY6iqBoUctijLg2-dNrC8FQ1_4LaMLL9/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Latest direction of Supreme Court about filling of vacancy in subordinate Judiciary

Re: State of Maharashtra/State of Goa (High Court of
Bombay)
Following officers are present on behalf of the
States of Maharashtra and Goa and the High Court of Bombay:-
(i) Mr. Surendra P. Tavade, Registrar General
Bombay High Court
(ii) Mr. S. Lada, Principal Secretary & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs (RLA), Law and Judiciary,
State of Maharashtra
(iii) Mr. Rajendra Gajanan Bhagwat, Deputy Secretary,
Law And Judiciary, State of Maharashtra
(iv) Mr. Govind Jaiswal, Law Secretary, State of Goa
Re: State of Maharashtra
I. District Judge/Higher Judicial Service
Process of recruitment for 76 posts is presently
going on, which includes 43 existing vacancies and the
remaining anticipated vacancies up to 31.03.2020. Six posts
are available for being filled up by direct recruitment and
10 by Limited Competitive Examination from in-service
candidates. The preliminary examination is over and the main
written examination is to be held in the month of August,
2019. The Registrar General of the High Court, who is present
in the Court, submits that interviews will be held by the
first week of September, 2019 and, thereafter, appointments
will be made, which, according to the Principal Secretary,
Law and Judiciary, should not take more than 15 days after
receipt of the recommendations from the High Court.
So far as the remaining 60 posts are concerned, the
same are promotional posts. The Registrar General submits

that evaluation of judgments of eligible officers will be
completed by the end of July, 2019 and, thereafter,
interviews will be held and the entire process is likely to
be finalized by the first week of September, 2019,
whereafter, according to the Principal Secretary, Law and
Judiciary, appointments will be made by the Government within
a week from the date of receipt of the recommendations by the
High Court.
The process, as indicated above, shall continue and
the Court would expect the select list for 76 posts to be
published by the end of September, 2019 and appointments be
made therefrom against existing vacancies and anticipated
vacancies as and when the same occur.

 We, therefore, direct that
the selection process for filling up posts in the cadres of
District Judge and Civil Judge (Senior Division) may be
completed and select list be prepared. The High Court on the
administrative side will chalk out an action plan as to in
what manner the upward movement of officers commencing from
the lowest cadre should be undertaken to cause the minimum
disturbance in the Court functioning. Such action plan will
be laid before this Court by the High Court on or before
17.09.2019, whereafter further orders will be passed.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.1867/2006

MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN Vs  U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Dated: 01-08-2019
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

Print Page

Delhi HC issues directions for objectivity in ACR grading of judicial officers

This court is of opinion that to inject greater uniformity, objectivity and also some measure of transparency as well as predictability in ACR grading, the following should be kept in mind by the appraisal evaluation authorities:

(1) (i) The concerned judicial officer should be award of marks/points for a maximum of 100.

(ii) The 100 marks to be awarded shall be divided as follows:

(a) 20% shall be earmarked for quality of judgments (with sub-heads, if possible for clarity, analytical skills, and application of law etc). For appraisal of judgments, the committee/appraising judge should call for all the judgments in contested cases, and, depending on the jurisdiction or jurisdictions exercised by the judicial officer, select 5 randomly – having as great a spread, according to the period (i.e. in the one-year period) and jurisdictions as possible. Copies of such five judgments should be considered. The relevant attributes for consideration should be clarity, grasp of legal principles and their application.

(b) A maximum of 25% may be awarded for the institution/disposal ratio. Of this, 10 marks should be for quantum of achievement (i.e. whether disposals were greater than institutions, in a given year) and 15 maximum marks for the units achieved for the relevant period.

(c) A maximum of 20% may be awarded for the total number of final judgments delivered in contested matters. Such a benchmark would

interrogate and reveal in real terms the qualitative disposals, rather than relying on the achievement of statistical targets by judicial officer.

(d) Every judicial officer claiming disposal targets, based on a maximum of 10% may be awarded for timeliness, promptness in delivery of judgments, disposal of old cases, not taking leave or clubbing leave with vacations, etc. (depending on the propensity or tendency of judicial officers to do so).

(e) The balance 25% may be awarded by the appraising High Court judge/Committee on the basis of interaction/ inspection.

(2) Some allowance may be given wherever the judicial officer is assigned burdensome administrative tasks, such as membership of committees, co-ordination for events, conducting disciplinary enquiries if any of staff, etc. Likewise, where there are peculiarities of jurisdiction, such as where the judicial officer handles CBI courts, or other jurisdictions which have their special characteristics, separate criteria needs to be devised.

(3) No officer should ordinarily be subject to appraisal of any one judge or committee for more than two consecutive years. This would eliminate unconscious biases in favour and against the officers.

(4) Instructions may be also issued requesting all appraising judges/ committees to forward instances of outstanding judgments and extremely poor judgments of any given judicial officer, which they may come across in their normal judicial functioning to the High Court registry, with further instructions that such judgments may be placed before the concerned inspecting High Court judge/committee for due consideration and input for the ACR appraisal of that judicial officer.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 21.08.2018

 W.P.(C) 3157/2015

SUJATA KOHLI  Vs REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Print Page

SC Directs 30% Hike In Basic Pay For Subordinate Judges

The Committee appointed by this Court by the Orders of this
Court dated 9.5.2017, submitted a report dated 9.3.2018 on Interim
Relief(Pay) to the Judicial Officers. The gist of the Report is
summarised in paragraph 15 of the Report. It reads:-
Summary of recommendations:-
1. Interim relief to the extent of 30% of increase in basic pay
with accrued increments shall be paid to all categories/ranks of
Judicial Officers.
2. The said increased in Pay shall be treated as a separate
2
component and no D.A. is payable thereon.
3. Arrears shall be worked out with effect from 01.01.2016 on the
above basis. The details of calculations are set out in Annexure-
I.
4. On the same basis, the interim relief shall be provided to the
pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 01.01.2016 and
the arrears to be paid accordingly.
5. Wherever the benefit of interim relief has already been
granted, the Judicial Officers in those States/UTs can exercise
their option to continue to be governed by such Orders.
6. The amounts payable by way of interim relief now proposed are
liable to the adjusted against the future determination pursuant to
the final report submitted by the Commission.
Heard Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG,
Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
Association and various learned counsel representing some of the
States and the Union Territories. None of the respondents raised
any objection with respect to the recommendations made by the
above-mentioned Committee regarding the interim relief(pay). In
the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct all the
respondents to implement the recommendations of the Commission, the
summary of which is already extracted above.

(ii) that the interim relief regarding the pay of
the Judicial Officers as recommended by the Commission be
implemented by all the concerned States and Union Territories
w.e.f. 1st of May, 2018. The arrears payable pursuant to the abovementioned
recommendations shall be paid on or before 30th June,
2018.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 643/2015
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION 
V
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
WITH
SLP( C ) No. 31461/2017
T.C.(C ) No. 3/2018
O R D E R
WP(C ) No. 643/2015

Print Page

When later judgment of Supreme court delivered by less number of Judges will be binding?

 I may add that Mr. Chhatrapati had vehemently contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhadra's case, is a judgment by four Judges' Bench and the subsequent judgment in Vasudev's case, is by three Judges' Bench and as such the decision of the Subhadra's case should be preferred as the same has been rendered by a larger Bench. In support of his contention, Mr. Chhatrapati placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, MANU/SC/0010/1974 : [1975]1SCR127 and Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc., MANU/SC/0619/1989 : [1989]178ITR548(SC) . It is not possible to accede to the contentions of Mr. Chhatrapati. When the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court has been considered by a later decision of the same Court in Vasudev's case, this Court will be bound by the said decision in Vasudev's case. As pointed out by the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court, if the Supreme Court itself in a later decision adverts to its earlier decision and lays down the import of the former on any aspect, such later decision is conclusive so far as the High Court is concerned. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 864 of 1990

Decided On: 08.07.1994

 Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Alexander Benedict Joseph Pereira

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Shah, J.

Citation: 1995(1) MHLJ115,1995(2) Bom CR 531

Print Page

Whether Judges appointed after 1st November 2005 are entitled to get pensionary benefits?

 We   hold   that   the   impugned   Government   Resolution
dated 31st October, 2015 is not applicable to the Judicial

Officers in the State who were appointed on or after 1st
November 2005.  The said officers will be entitled to the
same   pensionary   benefits   which   are   available   to   the
judicial officers appointed before 1st  November 2005.
However, the judicial officers who are appointed on or
after 1st November 2005 will have an option to continue
under the New Scheme;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.188 OF 2015
Vihar Durve  V  The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

CORAM  :  A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.

DATED: 11th AUGUST 2017
JUDGMENT (PER A.S. OKA, J.):­

Print Page

Landmark judgment on allotment of residential quarter to judges in Bombay

 In that regard, we invited the attention of Mr. Sonpal to the affidavit filed by one Mr. S. N. Bagul Joint Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Maharashtra. That is affirmed on 15th June, 2016. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of this affidavit make interesting reading. They are reproduced hereinbelow:- “3. I say and respectfully submit that, according to GR dated 30.12.2014, Government servant who desires/ requires Government Accommodation, has to submit his application online. According to para 3(D) of the said Government Resolution the Government Servant has to submit requisite scanned documents along with the application online to the concerned Head of the Office/Department using given user ID. According to para 3(E) of the said Government Resolution, after receiving the application the concerned Head of the Office/Department has to scrutinize whether office of the applicant is under his purview as well as the applicant's appointment is regular, birth date/date of retirement is correct and if it is found that the information filled in by the applicant is correct and applicant has submitted all the required documents, Head of the Office/Department has to send the application to the General Administration Department online. Thus the applicant can submit his application only after he assumes his duty on the post of his posting since the Head of the Office/Department has to certify documents to be submitted by Applicant. The applications are scrutinized as and when received online by General Administration Department. If applicants fulfill criteria then their applications are waitlisted. A copy of the said Government Resolution dated 30.12.2014 G. R. is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-A. 4. I say and respectfully submit that as per Government Resolution dated 05.10.2012 Judicial Officers are categorized in different categories as per their pay scales. In the said Government Resolution dated 05.10.2012 the grades of the judicial officers are classified in various categories for the purpose of entitlement of nature and place of accommodation on the basis of area and size of accommodation. They are thus entitled for the government accommodation as mentioned in the said Government Resolution dated 05.10.2012. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 05.10.2012 is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-B. 5. I further say and submit that category wise common waiting lists are prepared for the Administrative as well as Judicial Officers by the General Administration Department. Government Accommodations are allotted as per waiting list and the demand (demand in particular area or building) of the Applicants. However Judicial Officers are given priority as Administrative and Judicial Officers are allotted Government Accommodations in the ratio 1:1 as per the decision taken by the Government.”

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2069 OF 2015 

Sales Tax Tribunal Bar } Association and Anr. 

 v

The State of Maharashtra. 

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- JUNE 28, 2016

Print Page

When Judicial officer should not be compulsorily retired without departmental enquiry?

By the impugned judgment under appeal, the High Court opined that the compulsory retirement order impugned before it was not sustainable. Hence the appeal. During the pendency of the matter, on two earlier occasions, this Court passed two orders dated 1.12.2016 and 8.12.2016. The substance of the said orders is that the appellant submitted before this Court that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the first respondent, therefore, the continuation of the respondent's service will not be in the larger public interest and the judiciary. In the context of the submissions made by the appellant, this Court by the above mentioned orders called upon the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the statements made at the bar. Such affidavit alongwith huge volume of the material in support of the affidavit is filed. 2 It all boils down to this that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the first respondent. If that is the case, the appellant is always at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent which action according to us, the High Court is duty bound to take. If the officer whose conduct is questionable warranting his removal or compulsory retirement from the service, such an officer cannot simply be sent home with all the retiral benefits. But at the same time, if an officer is to be retired on the ground that his conduct is unwholesome, he is entitled to claim that the due process of law be followed.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8665 OF 2015 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 
VERSUS 
AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
Dated:JANUARY 12, 2017.
Citation:(2017) 5 SCC 138 

Print Page

Madras HC Directs media not to Publish names of Lawyers and Judges while reporting Court matters

It appears that
he is a practitioner of law. If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the
platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so
that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged
victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of
soliciting work on one's part. When once the Code of Conduct is prescribed by
the Bar Council of India to be always adhered to and followed by every
practitioner of law, any attempt to overreach the situation and also to
breach it, even in an indirect manner, as has been done in the present case,
it must attract necessary corrective action.
                We therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench to
place a copy of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in this case
before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry at Chennai for initiating
necessary action for the breach of Code of Ethics and professional conduct by
the writ petitioner. In the event the Bar Council agrees with our prima facie
opinion that the writ petition is instituted by a practicing lawyer, seeking
publicity and mileage for his professional activity rather than propelled by
genuine desire to protect the larger public-good and interest, the Bar
Council shall take appropriate action.  We hope and trust that the Bar
Council will be placing its 'action taken report' before this Court within a
period of six months.
                6.Often times, we have been noticing that the Print and
Electronic Media is carrying on publication of the names of legal
practitioners as well as the names of the Judges of the High Court concerned,
who dealt with particular cases, publication of names of practitioners who
may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to
an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the
professional abilities or skills of the advocates. We, therefore, direct the
Registrar (Administration) of this Bench to immediately circulate
instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the
names of the practitioners as part of news item.
                7.We also direct, for the present, the Registrar (Administration)
to request the Print, Electronic and Media House, not to publish the
individual names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required. The
reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work
sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon'ble
Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the
extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to
be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them.  Therefore,
we feel that the names of the Judges should not be published and on the other
hand, the name of the High Court alone should be published.
                8.We further direct the Registrar (Administration) to place this
matter before My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice, so that appropriate
instructions can be issued in this regard by My Lord The Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED:  22.08.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO                 
and 
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR           

Writ Petition (MD) No.15480  of 2016
and 
W.M.P(MD)Nos.11379 to 11381 of 2016    

S.Baskar Mathuram                                               ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
   

Print Page

Judges and Lawyers should update themselves with latest trend of law

Thus, it seems that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, has not been informed of the latest trend of law
on this aspect.  Judges and Lawyers should update themselves with the latest
trend of law.  Law is a living organism.  It grows every day.  It must be
'dynamic' and also 'pragmatic.  And should not be 'static'.  Law and judge-
made law (case-law) must undergo change in tune with the change in Society.
Otherwise, it will be a dull subject.  Thus, March of Law is bound to be.
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 17.08.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.181 of 2016 
and 
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2543 of 2016 

                                                                                       
Samuel Jebakani                                       ... Petitioner /   
Petitioner /
                                                                 De facto Complainant (LW-1) 
-vs-

The Superintendent of Police

Print Page

Delhi judges told: Can’t go abroad on court days even on leave

DELHI judges often deal with applications by accused to let them go abroad. So there was a certain irony in the circular they were handed last week, asking all the judges in Delhi district courts not to go abroad even if they were on official leave.

Read entire news on Indian Express: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/delhi-court-judges-cannot-go-abroad-trip-on-leaves-2962907/

Print Page

Whether Fast track Court Judges appointed on Ad hoc basis have right for regular promotion on the basis of such appointment?

From the aforesaid two authorities, it is quite clear
that the appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are
ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such recruits
promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary

for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment.
It has been categorically stated that FTC Judges were
appointed under a separate set of rules than the rules
governing the regular appointment in the State Higher
Judicial Services.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6105 OF 2013
V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. ... Appellants
 VERSUS
High Court of A.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
Dated:June 29, 2016
Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page

BomHC; Judges should not impleaded as party respondents in any petition

Before parting, we must once again reiterate our strong
disapproval of the practice which appears to be prevailing in the
Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of this court. The Registry
there does not seem to think it necessary to object to the
impleadment of the Hon'ble Judges comprising a Division Bench
or a Judge sitting singly as party respondents to review petitions
or applications in that nature.
We have not been shown any rule which requires such
impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that hereafter,
the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon parties/litigants and
their advocates deleting the names of Hon'ble Judges as party
respondents to review petitions and until such deletion, the
matter should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and their
advocates to delete such names and references to the Hon'ble
Judges and personal allegations against them, if the same are not
deleted by carrying out appropriate amendments, the Registry
shall append a note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly
that parties and lawyers were asked to delete such references,
but there being no compliance, the matter comes to be placed
before an appropriate court for directions. That would enable the
appropriate court to dismiss such proceedings only on this
ground. Just as there is enough justification for discontinuance of
such practice because none can insist on such impleadment, its
discontinuance upholds a salutary principle. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
 Common Citizen of India }
(Common Man) }
through Rakesh Omprakash }
Agarwal,
versus
 The Hon'ble High Court }
Judicature of Bombay through }
Registrar General, High Court, }
Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai, }
Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai. }

2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,

3. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Abhay Shriniwasji Oka }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court, 
4. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Anil Kumar Menon }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, 
5. State Government of }
Maharashtra, through Chief }
Secretary, 
6. The Government of India }
through Chief Secretary, }

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. PATEL, JJ.

Pronounced on 6th May, 2016

Print Page

BomHC; Judges should be protected from malicious personal allegations

Before parting, we must once again reiterate our strong
disapproval of the practice which appears to be prevailing in the
Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of this court. The Registry
there does not seem to think it necessary to object to the
impleadment of the Hon'ble Judges comprising a Division Bench
or a Judge sitting singly as party respondents to review petitions
or applications in that nature.
We have not been shown any rule which requires such
impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that hereafter,
the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon parties/litigants and
their advocates deleting the names of Hon'ble Judges as party
respondents to review petitions and until such deletion, the
matter should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and their
advocates to delete such names and references to the Hon'ble
Judges and personal allegations against them, if the same are not
deleted by carrying out appropriate amendments, the Registry
shall append a note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly
that parties and lawyers were asked to delete such references,
but there being no compliance, the matter comes to be placed
before an appropriate court for directions. That would enable the
appropriate court to dismiss such proceedings only on this
ground. Just as there is enough justification for discontinuance of
such practice because none can insist on such impleadment, its
discontinuance upholds a salutary principle. The sanctity and
purity of court proceedings lies in protection to Judges and
presiding officers against personal attacks by litigants and

lawyers on them. It is too well settled to require any reference to
a judgment or a precedent that there is freedom to be critical of a
judgment, but the language of such criticism must be sobre and
respectful. The discourse of law is the discourse of civility. Even
in the memo of review petitions or appeals, criticism of the
judgment should not reflect any personal attack of the litigant or
the draftsman on the Judge or presiding officer. None can claim a
freedom to mount an attack, and that too contemptuous, on a
Judge while criticising or assailing his judgment. If this much
protection to the Judge is not ensured or there is no safeguard
against malicious personal allegations, no court or no Judge can
function fearlessly and independently. Sometimes, a court is
required to be severely critical of the conduct of parties before it.
It does not demean or show any disrespect to them much less
personally, but ensures that the hand of the law is strong enough,
and its arm long enough to punish every guilty person howsoever
high he may be and to reach injustice wherever it is found.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
 Common Citizen of India }
(Common Man) }
through Rakesh Omprakash }
Agarwal,
versus
 The Hon'ble High Court }
Judicature of Bombay through }
Registrar General, High Court, }
Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai, }
Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai. }

2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,

3. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Abhay Shriniwasji Oka }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court, 
4. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Anil Kumar Menon }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, 
5. State Government of }
Maharashtra, through Chief }
Secretary, 
6. The Government of India }
through Chief Secretary, }

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. PATEL, JJ.

Pronounced on 6th May, 2016
Citation: 2016(4) MHLJ 28

Print Page

Whether different benches of high court can be permitted to pass contradictory orders?

Time and again we have observed that the Court acts as one
Court. The Judges sitting at different Benches at the same Seat or on
different Benches at the Principal Seat and its Benches cannot be permitted
to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by other Benches. At least
in a lis between the same parties, there has to be consistency in the orders

passed   by   different   Benches.   If   this   is   not   done   and   every   Judge   is
permitted to pass the orders contrary to the orders passed by the other
Bench, it would create chaos. This would lead to a situation of criss­cross
and it would hit at the basic doctrine of 'Rule of Law'.
12. The   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in   the   judgment   in   the   case   of
Official Liquidator...Versus...Dayanand and others, reported in  (2008)
10 Supreme Court Cases 1, in paragraph no.78, has held as under  :
“78. There   have   been   several   instances   of
different   Benches   of   the   High   Courts   not   following   the
judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches.  In
some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of
ignoring   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   without   any
tangible   reason.     Likewise,   there   have   been   instances   in
which smaller Benches of this Court have either ignored or
bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches
including   the   Constitution   Benches.   These   cases   are
illustrative of non­adherence to the rule of judicial discipline
which   is   sine   qua   non   for   sustaining   the   system.     In
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B. this
Court observed : (AIR p.941, para 19)
“19. …...If one thing is more necessary in
law than any other thing, it is the quality of
certainty.  That quality would totally disappear if
Judges of coordinate jurisdiction in a High Court
start overruling one another's decisions.   If one

Division   Bench   of   a   High   Court   is   unable   to
distinguish   a   previous   decision   of   another
Division Bench, and holding the view that the
earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that
view the result would be utter confusion.   The
position   would   be   equally   bad   where   a   Judge
sitting singly in the High Court is of opinion that
the previous decision of another Single Judge on
a question of law is wrong and gives effect to that
view instead of referring the matter to a larger
Bench.  In such a case lawyers would not know
how   to   advise   their   clients   and   all   courts
subordinate   to   the   High   Court   would   find
themselves in an embarrassing position of having
to choose between dissentient judgments of their
own High Court.”

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.867/2013
 M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd V Rupee Co­operative Bank Ltd., 
    
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
        CORAM  : B.R. GAVAI AND
              INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
        DATE      : 18.06.2015
Citation;2016 (1) MHLJ382,2017(1) ALLMR605

Print Page

How to make your winning argument by winning trust of judges?

Moving isn't the easiest thing in the world.  When you move from one home to another, you're basically transferring your entire life (and your family's life) to a new destination. As I was putting some stuff into storage this week, it brought up some memories of our previous experience, when we moved into our current home a few years ago.

What we moved into our new home, we had too much stuff (more specifically, too much HEAVY stuff) to move by ourselves, so, like most people, we had to hire a moving company.  Out of all the movers we contacted, only one of them called us back, but they did a terrific sales job.  He told me how all of their movers were bonded, how reliable they were, how careful they were, etc. etc.  Most importantly, he promised me that they'd be at our home "sometime between 11 AM and 1 PM" to help us move.

11 AM arrived, and as you'd expect, the movers weren't on time, but no big deal -- they said they be there between 11 and 1...

12 PM...  No movers.

1 PM...  No movers.

2 PM...  Still no movers, but when I call the moving company, he tells me that the truck got stuck in traffic, and promises me that they'll be there "in half an hour."

3 PM...  No movers, and my calls go to voicemail.

4 PM...  No movers, and no return phone call.  I finally get through to a customer service representative, and he tells me that the truck had a mechanical problem, but will be there in "half an hour."

5:15 PM... No movers, and no return phone calls, but I get a promise that they will be there "first thing" tomorrow morning, between 8 and 9 AM.

Next day...

8 AM...  No movers.

Print Page

High court dismisses Gujarat judge who tried her own husband

AHMEDABAD: Terming the act as "outright misconduct", Gujarat high court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a chief metropolitan magistrate who had tried her husband's case in her own court. Judge SV Shah, who was dismissed from service in 2009, had filed a petition in the high court.

The HC upheld the punishment given to her by Gujarat HC's administrative division and the state government. The high court observed: "The act of conducting the cases in which her husband was an accused is mischief on part of the judicial officer. Such an act cannot be said to be a negligent act, but it is outright misconduct."

Shah was made Ahmedabad's chief metropolitan magistrate in August 2000 and remained till January 2002. She was suspended over charges of conducting the trial of cases in which her husband Vijay Shah, the-then managing director of Comfort Knit Wears Ltd, was an accused.Shah faced an inquiry because instead of transferring her husband's case to another judge, she took up the cases for hearing two weeks before they were scheduled to be heard in 2000. She ordered implication of another director in the case, undertook the process illegally, and separated her husband's trial, according to the HC chargesheet. She imposed only a fine on her husband, while the others were punished with jail terms by another judge. She fined her husband with 50 paise for each day's default.

Print Page

Benefit of three increments should be granted to those Judicial Officers who completes LL.M. course after joining service

 The above-noticed plea, in our considered view, is wholly unjustified. Firstly, Shetty Commission has nowhere recommended that three advance increments are not to be granted to those Officers who acquire higher qualification while in service. The phrase “selected candidates…. having higher qualification” does not and cannot mean that if higher qualification is acquired by the selected candidates after their appointment, it would not improve their efficiency with better knowledge of Law. Secondly, the Judicial Officers having Postgraduate Degree in Law before appointment and those who acquire such Degree after joining the service, constitute one homogenous class and the artificial classification to discriminate against the latter category of Officers does not satisfy the test of equality within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thirdly, the classification professed in the case of Judicial Officers contradicts the State when confronted with the other services like Junior Engineers to whom benefit of advance increments, on acquisition of higher qualification ‘during service’, has been expressly granted vide circular dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P14).

(20). For the reasons afore-stated, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure P6) to the extent it denies the benefit of three increments to those Judicial Officers who have acquired/acquire higher qualification of LL.M. after joining the service. We further direct that :-

i. the benefit of three additional increments shall be admissible to the petitioners as well as other similarly placed Judicial Officers;

ii. the only permissible distinction shall be that the Judicial Officers who acquire LL.M. Degree before joining the service shall be entitled to additional increments from the date of joining the service, while those who have acquired/acquire the same after joining the service shall be entitled to these increments from the date of acquisition of the higher qualification of LL.M.;

iii. the three increments granted to the Judicial Officers on acquisition of LL.M. Degree shall be treated as ‘additional increments’ in the same manner as has been directed by this Court in Priya Sood’s case (Punjab matter);

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Virender Parshad and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Judge : SURYA KANT & R.P. NAGRATH

Decided On : Aug-02-2012

Case Number : CWP No.15883 of 2011 (O&M)

Citation: 2013(2)SCT728(P&H)

Print Page

What are protection to Judges and their liabilities?

On behalf of the petitioners, however, reliance was placed on the following observations of Lord Denning in his Book "The Due Process of Law" : --

"In the old days, as I have said, there was a sharp distinction between the inferior courts and the superior courts. Whatever may have been the reason for this distinction, it is no longer valid. There has been no case on the subject for the last one hundred years at least. And during this time our judicial system has changed out of all knowledge. So great is this change that it is now appropriate for us to consider the principles which should be applied to judicial acts. In this new age I would take my stand on this, as a matter of principle the judges of superior courts have no greater claim to immunity than the judges of the lower courts. Every judge of the courts of this land from the highest to the lowest should be protected to the same degree, and liable to the same degree."

Patna High Court

Shri Harish Chandra Mishra And ... vs The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ali ... on 25 September, 1985

Equivalent citations: AIR 1986 Pat 65

Bench: N Singh, S Choudhuri, U Sinha, B P Sinha, P Sahay

Print Page