PM could have last say in CJI appointment - Government May Want PM To Step In If CJI Fails To Recommend The Senior-Most Judge

The government has seen a devil in the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of the Chief Justice of India and has initiated the process to amend it and give the final say to the Prime Minister in tricky situations. Since the executive had lost primacy in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts nearly 17 years ago, it is the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court who is appointed to the top post after the retirement of the CJI. But, there is a catch. The process for appointment of the senior-most judge to the top judicial post can be initiated only after the incumbent CJI gives a recommendation saying he is eminently suitable for the job. The government feels once the apex courts constitution Bench had ruled that the senior-most judge would get elevated to the top post after the retirement of the incumbent CJI,there should not be any leverage given to the CJI for choosing his successor. What happens if the CJI refuses to send any recommendation or sends a recommendation proposing the name of a judge junior to the senior-most judge Should the appointment process for the CJI come to a standstill for this purpose

Law ministry sources said that the Govt. has already drafted the proposed change in the MoP that would empower the Prime Minister to step in such eventualities. If the CJI gives a recommendation proposing the name of a judge other than the senior-most judge of the SC or sends no recommendation, then the PM would advise the President to appoint the senior-most judge as the CJI. The proposed change in the present MoP, which was drafted during the time when Ram Jethmalani was the law minister, would soon be discussed with the judiciary for clearance and implementation, the sources said.
==========================
No longer juvenile, SC sets free murder convict


Age was really on his side. As a 16-year-old boy, he had murdered his relative 19 years ago. He had spent two years and four months in a juvenile remand before being granted bail during trial and appeal before HC, both of which convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The SC accepted Dharamvirs plea that he was a juvenile when the murder was committed. But under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, he could be send to a remand home for a maximum period of three years, whatever be the crime. This meant he would have to undergo confinement in a juvenile home for another eight months. The SC felt it would be pernicious to send a 35-year-old man to a juvenile home and thought it is better to release him. So despite a Bench comprising Justices DK Jain and JM Panchal fastening the murder charge on him, it had to him let go, for under the JJ Act, he had no place in a remand home. In this case, the Bench had tasked a Registrar of the SC to conduct inquiries at the three schools the accused had attended till the commission of crime. Based on inquiries made, the report concluded that the accused was 16 years, 9 months and 8 days at the time of commission of the crime, clearly a juvenile. With the legal issue settled, the Bench was left to decide the quantum of punishment. Under the 2000 Act, no juvenile could be detained in a juvenile home beyond a period of three years. In  case of the accused, he had already undergone two years, four months incarceration. So should he be sent back there again, that too when he is 35 years old. The court agreed with Sr advocate K Parasaran and counsel Sukumar, who appeared for the accused, and said, We feel that keeping in view the age of the appellant, it may not be conducive to the environment in the special home, to refer him to the Board for passing orders for sending the appellant to special home or for keeping him at some other place of safety for the remaining period of less than eight months, the maximum period for which he can now be kept in either of the two places, the Bench said. The court ordered his release forthwith by quashing the sentence awarded by the trial court.
================
(source-toi)