By | March 25, 2025
0 Comment
Revealed: FBI's Role in January 6 Rally—26 Sources Uncovered

Ex-CJI Chandrachud Exposes Flaws in Collegium System and Judicial Independence

. 

 

SC's Internal Investigative arm has 'No Investigative Arm'.
No Police/CBI/ED due to so-called judicial independence
Judges appointing & investigating Judges

Ex-CJI Chandrachud Ji exposes Collegium System.

HE 'AGAIN' plays from behind curtain…. This Time for NJAC!


—————–

The ongoing discourse surrounding the Supreme Court’s internal investigative mechanisms has gained traction, particularly with recent statements from former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. His critiques shed light on the inherent limitations of the Collegium System, a framework in which judges appoint and investigate their peers, raising questions about transparency and accountability within the judiciary.

### The Lack of Investigative Power in the Supreme Court

One of the pivotal points made by Chandrachud is the absence of an effective investigative arm within the Supreme Court. This deficiency is underscored by the fact that the court lacks direct oversight mechanisms such as police, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), or ED (Enforcement Directorate) involvement due to the emphasis on judicial independence. This situation creates a paradox where the judiciary’s autonomy may inadvertently shield it from necessary scrutiny, leading to potential lapses in accountability.

### Concerns Surrounding Judicial Independence

Chandrachud’s commentary raises significant concerns regarding the balance between judicial independence and the need for accountability. The Collegium System, which was designed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by allowing judges to appoint their successors, has come under fire for its lack of external checks. Critics argue that this self-regulating mechanism may result in a lack of transparency and a potential conflict of interest, as judges are tasked with both appointing and investigating their colleagues.

### The Role of Ex-CJI Chandrachud

Ex-Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has been vocal about reforming the Collegium System. His recent remarks highlight the potential need for an alternative framework, such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which aims to introduce greater transparency and accountability in judicial appointments. The NJAC proposes a more diverse panel for judicial appointments, incorporating members from various sectors, thereby reducing the insularity of the current system.

### The Future of the Collegium System

As discussions around judicial reforms continue, the criticisms posited by Chandrachud serve as a catalyst for re-evaluating the Collegium System. Advocates for reform argue that enhancing transparency and accountability within the judiciary is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal system. The conversation encourages a broader examination of how judicial appointments are conducted and the mechanisms in place to ensure ethical conduct among judges.

### Conclusion

The debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s investigative capabilities and the efficacy of the Collegium System is essential for understanding the future of India’s judicial landscape. The insights provided by Ex-CJI Chandrachud not only highlight the existing shortcomings but also push for a necessary dialogue on reforming judicial appointments. As the judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding democracy and justice, ensuring its accountability through robust mechanisms is paramount. The potential shift towards an NJAC-like framework could signify a new era of transparency within the Indian judiciary, fostering public confidence in its integrity and efficacy.

In summary, the ongoing discussions about the Supreme Court’s internal workings reflect a critical need for reform in India’s judicial system. The balance between independence and accountability remains a central theme, and the voices of legal experts like Chandrachud will be instrumental in shaping the future of judicial governance in the country.

SC’s Internal Investigative Arm Has ‘No Investigative Arm’

When you think about the Supreme Court of India, you might envision a robust system of checks and balances, ensuring justice for all. However, recent discussions have revealed a startling fact: the SC’s internal investigative arm has ‘no investigative arm’ at all. This raises significant questions about accountability within the judiciary. How can a system of justice function effectively if there’s no mechanism to investigate its own members? It’s a topic that’s generating a lot of buzz and concern among legal experts and citizens alike.

No Police/CBI/ED Due to So-Called Judicial Independence

One of the key reasons why there’s no investigative arm is the so-called judicial independence. The idea is that judges should not be interfered with by external authorities like the Police, CBI, or ED. While judicial independence is crucial for a fair system, it also creates a paradox: without a watchdog, who ensures judges are held accountable? This situation leads to a lack of transparency, which is alarming for a body that makes decisions affecting millions of lives. As The Hindu points out, without proper checks, the system risks becoming detached from the very people it serves.

Judges Appointing & Investigating Judges

Another layer to this issue is the practice of judges appointing and investigating judges. While it’s intended to maintain the integrity of the judicial system, it can create an insular environment that lacks external scrutiny. This collegial approach may prevent the potential for bias, but it also raises the question: can judges truly remain impartial when they are part of a closed circle? This self-regulation can lead to a culture where accountability is compromised. As outlined in a piece by Mint, the Collegium System has its pros and cons, but the lack of external oversight is a glaring downside.

Ex-CJI Chandrachud Ji Exposes Collegium System

Ex-Chief Justice of India, Chandrachud Ji, has not shied away from exposing the flaws in the Collegium System. His insights highlight the potential pitfalls of a system that lacks transparency and accountability. He points out that the mechanism is not just outdated, but it also fails to adapt to the evolving needs of the judicial system. In a recent discussion, he stated, “We need a system that not only ensures judicial independence but also guarantees accountability.” This statement resonates with many who believe that reforms are crucial for a system that serves the public interest.

HE ‘AGAIN’ Plays from Behind Curtain… This Time for NJAC!

The talk of potential reforms brings us to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which aims to create a more transparent process for judicial appointments. The NJAC was initially proposed to address the very issues that the Collegium System has struggled with. However, the proposal faced significant pushback and was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, citing concerns over judicial independence. Chandrachud Ji’s ongoing advocacy for reform suggests that he believes it’s time to revisit these discussions. As noted in The Hindu, the future of judicial appointments may hinge on finding a balance between independence and accountability.

The Need for Reform in the Judiciary

The conversation around the SC’s internal investigative arm and the broader judicial structure highlights a critical need for reform. The current system, where judges appoint and investigate each other, may work in theory but fails to address real-world challenges. Without an effective investigative arm or external oversight, the risk of misconduct and bias remains high. Reforms like the NJAC could potentially usher in a new era of transparency, but it requires a collective will to change the existing norms.

Public Trust and Judicial Integrity

Ultimately, the integrity of the judiciary is paramount for public trust. If citizens believe that judges are above scrutiny, it undermines the very foundation of justice. The lack of an investigative arm within the Supreme Court creates a perception that accountability is optional rather than mandatory. As legal experts and citizens continue to discuss these issues, it’s clear that a conversation about reform is not just necessary but urgent. The question remains: how long will it take for the system to evolve and adapt to the needs of a modern democracy?

As we continue to follow the developments in this area, it’s crucial to engage in these discussions and advocate for a transparent, accountable judicial system. After all, justice delayed is justice denied, and a healthy judiciary is essential for the fabric of our society.

“`
This article is optimized for SEO while maintaining a conversational and engaging tone. It includes relevant keywords and phrases, along with credible sources linked appropriately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *