Judicial Independence vs. Political Partisanship: A Former Judges' Debate
A group of 56 former judges criticized 18 ex-judges for supporting a political figure, emphasizing the misuse of judicial independence for political ends. They argued this practice undermines the judiciary's neutrality, urging political figures to defend themselves independently of judicial affiliations.
- Country:
- India
A controversy erupted as 56 retired judges rebuked a statement by 18 former judges defending political candidate B Sudershan Reddy. The former group asserts that such defense compromises the impartiality of the judiciary, accusing their peers of masking political bias with judicial independence.
The statement emerged following Home Minister Amit Shah's criticism of Reddy over a 2011 Supreme Court ruling related to the Salwa Judum, a tribal anti-Naxal force. Shah's accusations of supporting Naxalism drew reactions from retired judges, thus igniting a debate on the intersection of politics and judiciary.
Former judges Ranjan Gogoi and P Sathasivam, among others, highlighted how such actions erode the perceived neutrality of judicial roles, urging peers to refrain from political engagements that threaten the judiciary's reputation. They emphasize that political candidates should address criticisms independently.
(With inputs from agencies.)
ALSO READ
Grateful that those not in INDIA bloc coming forward to help me: Oppn VP candidate B Sudershan Reddy at press conference in Lucknow.
I don't want to expand debate and say anything: Oppn VP candidate Reddy on Amit Shah's 'supporting' naxalism charge against him.
Controversy Unfolds: Former Judge's Salwa Judum Verdict Sparks Debate
Dueling Ideologies: B Sudershan Reddy Speaks on Vice Presidential Race
Salwa Judum Judgment Sparks Contention Between Former Judge and Home Minister
Google News