Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 80

Question No. 5

(a) Six High Courts have sent no reply to Question 5, in view of their reply to Question 4. According to one High Court (which has, in its reply to Question 4 favoured the idea), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Law Minister should be ex-officio members. It suggests that three more persons who have been Chief Justices or Judges of the Supreme Court, may also be appointed as members.

(b) Chief Justice of one High Court (not having favoured the proposal in Question 4), has not replied to Question 5. A Judge of another High Court (in view of his affirmative reply to Question 4) has stated that the three members should be in service, rather than retired.

(c) A very eminent jurist is of the view that the body of persons to be constituted (whether unofficial or constitutional) should not be a mixed one of both Judges and lawyers. It should not also be unwieldy.

(d) One State Government is of the view that the composition of the proposed Commission may be suitably devised, and its strength may be seven or nine. Two State Governments and one Law Secretary are opposed to the very idea of a Commission. Another State Government is of the view that

(i) instead of the Minister of Law a retired Chief Justice should be made a member;

(ii) the sitting Chief Justice of India would have already had his say and so, the retired Chief Justice of India should (instead of the sitting Chief Justice of India) be made Chairman of the proposed Commission.

Method of appointments of Judges Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys