कोर्ट के समय में मोबाइल पर बात करते है मजिस्ट्रेट अभिषेक कुमार,
याचिकाकर्ता से बात करने का समय नहीं और जानबूझ कर चैंबर में जा कर बैठ जाते है।
बुलाने पर नहीं आते सीट पर।
Registrar General Rajendra Vani से शिकायत की गई है .
CASE OF JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY
Umaria MP State: Umaria Judicial Magistrate First Class Shri Abhishek Kumar is doing judicial indicipline in court room . In judicial hours he is receiving many phone calls in chair and waisting judicial time.
He asked party in person to sit 45 minutes for passing order . Meanwhile he received 3 calls on phone in his seat. After receiving phone calls he went to his chamber and waisted judicial time of 5-10 minutes. After receiving third call he did not came from chamber for more than 10 minutes. Due to such unprofessional approach of Magistrate Abhishek Kumar complainant left the chamber. When the complainant came back after 30 minutes then he come to know that magistrate has put comment in file and adjourned the matter. He is waisting important judicial time in gossips and doing contempt of his own court. He also willfully ignoring party in person to deny argument .Many times In judicial timing he is sitting in chambers and litigants are waiting to get seated.
Simon Rifkind, a well-known American jurist, once said: “The courtroom, sooner or later, becomes the image of the judge. It will rise or fall to the level of the judge who presides over it.” Therefore, the image of the judge is so fundamental for the institution. In the words of American lawyer and academic Alan Dershowitz, “(the) judges are the weakest link in our system, and they are also the most protected”.
The country now debates the level of protection that the Chief Justice can have. In the Veeraswami case (1991), the Supreme Court said that “the judges are liable to be dealt with just the same way as any other person in respect of criminal offence”. But the Veeraswami verdict also held that the consent of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is required to register a First Information Report (FIR) against a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. If the accusation is against the CJI, permission by “any other judge or judges of the Supreme Court” is needed.
Who will judge the judges is a fundamental question of Indian democracy. We need to address it. A constitutional mechanism to deal with judicial misbehaviour and the crimes committed by the judges needs to be designed by way of a comprehensive legislation. This needs to be done without compromising judicial independence and also by adhering to the equality principles. The law of the country does not and cannot create immunity to the persons holding high constitutional posts, who actually are the servants of the people and not their masters.
A judge is a sitting duck for such antics as he exercises moral authority, so very integral and intrinsic to judicial authority, only on the basis of his credibility.
But there is a small number of judges, whose behaviour inside courtrooms towards lawyers is way below the desired level.
Comments
Post a Comment