Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No verdict should be reserved for over 3 months: Justice Ganguly by Dhananjay Mahapatra

No verdict should be reserved for over 3 months: Justice Ganguly by Dhananjay Mahapatra

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 15, 2012   modified Modified on Feb 15, 2012

Justice A K Ganguly, who was part of the bench that monitored the CBI probe into the 2G spectrum scam and retired soon after pronouncement of the explosive judgment ordering cancellation of telecom licences, wants the Supreme Court to follow what it has prescribed for the high courts - no judgment should remain reserved for more than three months. 

Justice Ganguly said litigants develop a grudge against the justice delivery system because of the delay in pronouncement of verdicts. Their plight worsens when the judge, who heard the plea and reserved judgment, retires without giving the decision, entailing fresh hearing and resultant hardship, he told TOI. 

The remark, although in response to a question on delay in delivery of judgments, takes significance because the bench of Justices G S Singhvi and Ganguly had kept their verdict "reserved" on the petition against PMO's inaction in granting sanction for prosecution of sacked telecom minister A Raja for more than a year. The keenly-awaited verdict was reserved on November 24, 2010 and delivered on January 31, 2012, three days before Justice Ganguly retired, with the long delay leading to agonizing suspense about the fate of the politically crucial petition. 

Early on, Justice Ganguly's scathing comments on government's failure to take action against Raja led to the former telecom minister's resignation from the Union Cabinet on November 14, 2010. 

The period for which the verdict on the petition against PMO was kept reserved by Justices Singhvi and Ganguly pales before the time taken by a different SC bench in another politically fraught case. A bench led by Justice Altamas Kabir reserved its verdict in February 2009 on a CBI application for withdrawal of its plea wanting prosecution of Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and his relatives in a disproportionate assets case. After three years, no verdict has been given. Meanwhile, Justice Cyriac Joseph, who was part of the bench, has retired, meaning the case will have to be heard afresh. 

Justice Ganguly said the apex court in 2001 in Anil Rai vs State of Bihar had laid down clear guidelines relating to pronouncement of judgment. The SC had said, "Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving the judgment, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the high court with a prayer for early judgment." The court had said such an application would be listed for hearing before the concerned judges within two days. 

The SC had also said, "If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within six months, any of the parties to the said list (case) shall be entitled to move an application before the chief justice of the high court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments. It is open for the chief justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any order as he deems fit in the circumstances." 

Justice Ganguly, who rarely missed the three-month deadline for pronouncement of judgment in cases heard by him, felt that the directions to HCs for expeditious decision in cases must apply to the Supreme Court judges.


The Times of India, 15 February, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-verdict-should-be-reserved-for-over-3-months-Justice-Ganguly/articleshow/11892457.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close