Sarpanch’s death: SC rejects Haryana MLA’s bail plea

New Delhi/Chandigarh, September 19
The Supreme Court today rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Haryana’s former Transport Minister Om Prakash Jain and directed him to surrender before the CBI court by September 23 in a case involving the death of a sarpanch.

Jain along with MLA Zile Ram Sharma is accused of abetting suicide of Karam Singh, sarpanch of Kambopura village in Karnal, on June 7, 2011. The order was passed by a three-member Bench headed by Justice HL Dattu. Jain had moved the apex court seeking protection against arrest by the CBI. Karam Singh was found dead a day after he lodged a complaint against Jain and Sharma for allegedly duping him of Rs 13 lakh on the promise of securing jobs.

A week later, the police recovered the body of Chamel Singh, a key witness in the case, under mysterious circumstances near the Karnal police station.

On August 13, the CBI court in Panchkula issued summons to Jain and Sharma directing them to appear in court on August 29. The CBI has already filed a charge-sheet in the case and sought permission to conduct a polygraph test on the two. The CBI had raided their premises at Panipat, Karnal, Chandigarh and Panchkula before seeking to question them. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had handed over the case to the CBI on the plea of Karam Singh’s son Rajinder Singh.

The two MLAs have contended that their arrest was not required in the case as the CBI had already filed the charge-sheet. The orders come less than a week after the high court asked the two MLAs to appear before the Panchkula special CBI court, while dismissing their anticipatory bail petitions.

The two had moved the high court against the rejection of their anticipatory bail plea and issuance of non-bailable warrants by the CBI special court.

Challenging the order, Sharma’s counsel had contended that the accused had been cooperating with the investigating agency.

In its charge-sheet filed on August 8, the CBI had maintained it was a case of suicide and accused Jain, Sharma and Jain’s personal assistant of abetting suicide. The three were charged by the agency under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the IPC. Jain was one of the seven Independent MLAs who aided the Congress in forming the government in Haryana in 2009. 

CJI defends collegium system for appointing judges to SC, HCs

New Delhi, September 14
Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam on Saturday defended the collegium system of appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, but said it is the prerogative of the Centre to bring in a Bill to change it.
"Now, as the CJI, I am not going into the contents of the Bill and how it was passed, as it is the prerogative of the government and it is for the people to accept it or not. It is too early for me to say anything on the Judicial Appointment Commission or Committee," Justice Sathasivan said while inaugurating a seminar on rule of law.
His remarks came after Bar Association of India president Anil Divan raised questions on the way the Centre brought the Bill "without" taking members of the judicial fraternity into confidence and "rushed" it through the Rajya Sabha. He said they did not receive a response from the Law Minister to a letter by the country’s top jurists (dated April 17) seeking a draft copy of the Bill.
The CJI said the government and its agencies have a say in the present collegium system and their views were also taken into consideration for the appointment of judges. He said no name is finalised until it gets clearance from the Law Minister, the Prime Minister and the President and in the whole mechanism, inputs from the Intelligence bureau, respective high courts and eminent people such as sons of the soil, are taken into consideration. He said judicial function is universally recognised as distinct and separate in the system of government and is the "very heart" of the republic and the "bulwark" of democracy.
He said judicial accountability is fostered through the process of selection, discipline and removal found in the Constitution.
Stressing the need for an independent judiciary, he said, without it, there is a little hope for the rule of law.
"The need for judicial independence is for the people," he said.

What he said: No name is finalised until it gets clearance from the Law Minister, the Prime Minister and the President and in the whole mechanism, inputs from the Intelligence bureau, respective high courts and eminent people such as sons of the soil, are taken into consideration
Although both judicial independence and judicial accountability are vital for maintaining the rule of law, they are sometimes projected as conflicting phenomenon. Judicial accountability has become an indispensable counterbalance to judicial independence.
P Sathasivam, chief justice of india