Taking the judiciary for a ride, a strict no!

Call it a coincidence or a misfortune, the country's ace investigation agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has levelled a serious allegation against the government of West Bengal that its officials had 'tempered' with the court's order. The allegation came on the eve of the meeting of the High Court chief justices with the Chief Ministers of the States. The crucial meeting was addressed, among others, by the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India.

It is unfortunate that when an attempt is underway to build the bridges between the Executive and Judiciary by enlisting mutual trust, such a serious allegation nothing short of forgery by a State raises serious concerns. The undercurrent of constructive federalism between the Centre and the States has been moving in a dangerously erratic manner since the accession to power at the Centre by the hitherto nondescript Opposition in 2014.

The crestfallen kings and queens of yesteryears leave no stone unturned to take upon the ruling central NDA combine. While some issues chosen for beating the drums do have a semblance of sanity, most of others are sheer nonsensical. Anyway, so far the fight was limited to the Centre versus the States ruled by the Opposition, but now the new trend has emerged. According to it, the gubernatorial and non-partisan posts such as the Governors and Judges too, are deliberately targeted. Seen in this backdrop, the ED's allegation that the officials of the West Bengal government indulged in the forgery of a court order to facilitate implicating the former's official, is indeed, very serious.

Such nefarious attempts by the defeated political pigmies and those having just a token presence in some States would eat up the very fabric of unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country, and therefore, not only deserve an all-round condemnation but also to be crushed with the iron-fist.

True, the judiciary has been over-burdened with the pending cases of about 4.5 crore, true that it takes years together to deliver justice, it is also true that there has been acute shortage of requisite infrastructure and judges to tackle this situation; but all these matters per se do not entitle anybody including the chief ministers to attribute motives to such dignitaries with the oblique motive of shaking people's confidence in these constitutional institutions. In fact, amidst the climate of distrust and motive to defame and discredit country's judiciary by the vested political interests, deliberations on vital matters concerning justice delivery with such interests was not desirable. Further, the government being the biggest litigant in terms of number of cases in the courts, the needle of suspicion of quid pro quo too, cannot be altogether faulted. In fact, it is high time to grant real independence to the judiciary in the wider interests of our democracy,

Furlough is an incentive for good behaviour: Sc

Delivering the verdict in Atbir Vs State of NCT of Delhi, the apex court's division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose has held that getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough. The bench added that if a prisoner maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course.

"The whole of the scheme of granting furlough is based on the approach of reformation and as incentive for maintaining good conduct", the court added and referred back the matter for reconsideration to the authorities concerned in accordance with law.

Vikas Singh re-elected as scba president

The incumbent President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and senior advocate, Vikas Singh has been re-elected as the President at the elections of SCBA held recently.

Senior advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai has been elected as the Vice-President while advocate Rahul Kaushik has been elected as the honorary Secretary.

Son's eviction from father's house upheld

The Bombay High Court recently evicted a son from the self acquired house of his parents and rebuked him for branding his aged father a 'swindler'.

Dismissing the petition in a case titled, Namdeo and another v/s State of Maharashtra and others, Justice Rohit Deo observed: 'in the conservative Indian society, a son is not expected to brand his aged father a 'swindler' or allege that the aged parents have lost mental balance.

The allegations that the aged parents have been physically assaulted, that the other son was also assaulted and that visitors were prevented from entering the residential house, are not specifically traversed.'

Further observing that the emotional and physical well being of the aged parents cannot be ensured unless the petitioners vacate the self acquired residential house, the court cited a precedent wherein the Bombay High Court vide Santosh Surendra Patil v/s Surendra Narasgopnda Patil and others, had held that there is no illegality in evicting sons from the residential house to ensure the peace of the senior citizen.

Presumption about the material before the court

The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has observed that at the time of framing of a charge, the court is required to proceed on the presumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true and added that the court is not expected to delve into the matter and hold that the material produced does not warrant a conviction.

Dealing with a Criminal Revision Petition in Chaman Mangla v/s State of UP and another, the court observed that the principle to be adopted for quashing a case should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute to offence or not. 'It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged and judged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of framing charges when perusal of the statement of victim said to have been recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 CrPC clearly reveals the commission of offence, the court added.