Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When a judicial officer is of the mind that judgment cannot be pronounced on the material available on record and further assistance is required for certain clarifications, it becomes a matter of being put up open for hearing in the Court.”
The Court further held that a person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of 7 years or more as an Advocate or a Judicial Officer, would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge.
The Senior Civil Judge had allegedly threatened a police officer over a phone call in a complaint case filed against his sister.
Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of 10 Judges for 2 High Courts- 3 for Delhi High Court whereas for 7 for Rajasthan High Court.
The Court expressed dissatisfaction over the en-passant, unnecessary, and adverse remarks against a Judicial Officer without affording him any opportunity.
The Collegium led by CJI B.R. Gavai held meetings on two consecutive days to recommend the names fit for elevation.
After enrolment at the Bar in 1993, Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) practiced at the High Court and City Civil Court for about 16 years and thus has extensive experience at the Bar and the Bench.
The Court noted that the report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner was also without granting him an opportunity of being heard.
“It is most unfortunate that the convicts had to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of about 14 years due to the failure of the authorities concerned to take note of the fact that they were juveniles at the time of the commission of the crime.”
To attract the offence under Section 3061 of the Penal Code, 1860, clear mens rea to commit the offence must be established on applicant-accused’s part, as it requires active/direct act, leading the deceased to commit suicide.
The husband of one of the Judicial Officers alleged that she along with another Judicial Officer and Public Prosecutor violated the guidelines laid down in the Arnesh Kumar case; and that he was illegally arrested from his residence at off hours, pursuant to matrimonial matter.
The Court strictly pointed out that the High Court could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers. That can only be done on the administrative side in an appropriate case.
The Collegium recommended the appointment of 5 Permanent Judges and 3 Judicial Officers as new Judges of Madras High Court.
The Judicial Officer’s feeble excuses made in favour of non-compliance with the Court order could not be accepted; Judicial Officer is not performing duties seriously.
“While the guideline aims to protect judicial officers from unwarranted harassment, it does not eliminate the possibility of addressing genuine issues faced by individuals or communities due to the actions of a judicial officer. The High Court retains the responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of the complaints and take appropriate action based on verified facts.”
In a series of Resolutions dated 12-03-2024, the Collegium recommended appointment of several Permanent Judges and appointment of Judicial Officers and Advocates as Judges.
“The service rule of petitioner being a Judicial Officer is covered by Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 and the ambit of Article 311 of the Constitution pertains to permanent employees and not probationer Judicial Officer.”
“This case and order will serve as a reminder that general public shall not believe unscrupulous persons and give them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system by such payment.”
In its Resolution dated 17-08-2023, the Collegium recommended the names of the judicial officers and advocates to be appointed as Judges in High Courts of Gauhati and Orissa.
On 2-6-2023, the Delhi High Court issued a circular revising the Dress Code of Judicial Officers and Advocates. Key Points: Rule 30