Comments on: Supreme Court errrs not once, twice, but thrice

By: Tribhuvan

Tribhuvan — Thu, 06 May 2010 03:08:59 +0000

TD Sharma’s comments are in a way complementary to the concluding observation of Shri A.Banerjee.
I recall the experience of a newly appointed Member of the CAT having been denied HRA from the date of compulsory allotment of the newly built bungalow in the station where he was working.Since there was no Govt.accommodation available in the first place when the Member had assumed charge,he moved into his own small flat in the same city and claimed admissible HRA.
The Chairman of the CAT,a Rtd. CJ of a HC, allowed the claim for HRA subject to the condition that the Member should move into the new Quarters (actually still under construction) as and when ready and allotted, failing which he would lose HRA.The Member’s plea, based on the Service Rules applicable to the CAT Members, was met with the terse reply: “My earlier order stands”..
The HRA was allowed subsequently by the successor-Chairman, himself a Rtd.Judge of a HC, following a specific High Court Order.

Judicial review is the essence of Juridical evolution…But,pride and prejucice, can mar the majesty of Law.

By: T.D.SHARMA

T.D.SHARMA — Tue, 04 May 2010 15:32:36 +0000

How many of our judges, at least in the lower courts, and how many officers administering the huge number of laws enacted in India and the States also have that habit? As far as is known, the court made laws are neither respected, nor read, and, therefore, followed by a single law officer/quasi-judicial authorities in this country, and this practice is positively discouraged by their superiors. Hence the quotation in the comments of A.Banerjee is rather superfluous and irrelevant.

But, may be, some reader will write to prove me wrong.

By: A.BANERJEE

A.BANERJEE — Tue, 04 May 2010 02:30:38 +0000

I would only like to reminisce, with respect to the former CJI and the Supreme Court of India, that the legendary Mr. Justice Bhagwati had long ago observed in his golden words in the famous case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors [1985 AIR 1585 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 778;1986 SCC (1) 43 1985; SCALE (1)1216] as under:

“To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of
judicial conscience. In this we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter A.M.Y. at page 18: ‘a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible therefore everyday to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors’.”

These principles and words would appear to have been lost in oblivion.