Earlier views don’t have impact on panel appointments, says SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed to be responding to criticism over the composition of the panel it appointed to weigh in on the contentious farm laws by observing generically, and in an unrelated case, that it isn’t improper to pick someone for a court-appointed committee just because they have previously expressed an opinion on the issue to be considered.
On January 12, the court named four people to a committee it wanted to look at the farm laws, a move that immediately drew flak on account of the fact that all four had previously expressed support for the reforms in question.
Indeed, the criticism was strong enough for one of the members to withdraw from the panel. Interestingly, the court’s observation came a day before it is scheduled to hear an affidavit seeking the removal of the three other members of the panel on account of bias.
On Tuesday, while hearing an unrelated case, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said “there seems to be a misunderstanding of law” regarding composition of committee members.
“When we appoint a Committee and we find the members have expressed their opinions on the subject, they are still entitled to continue.”
He went on to elaborate: “Speaking in general, people are expected to be intelligent and informed. You are entitled to give your view. There is lack of comcriminal
prehension about the composition of a committee. This is not a situation where somebody alleges bias towards a person whose relative
is a beneficiary.”
The Court’s comments came in a suo motu proceeding related to inadequacies and deficiencies in trials following the lockdown. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra was part of a three-member committee constituted by the court to examine the rules framed by various High Courts and recommend changes in rules to facilitate early disposal of criminal trials. He assisted senior advocate R Basanth and advocate K Parmeshwar in this task.
Luthra said, “Today we are moving towards a hybrid system and norms must be laid down for having a mix of physical and virtual proceedings for not just hearings but also trial through videoconferencing.”
The bench, also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, requested Luthra to assist them as amicus curiae in this regard. But Luthra felt that his comments openly supporting videoconferencing as against physical court hearings could go against him in undertaking this responsibility. This provoked the CJI tomake his observation.
Justice Bobde said: “Where is the question of your disqualification. Everybody is entitled to speak their mind.”
Last week, one of the protesting farmer unions, Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU)- Lokshakti filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court demanding removal of the other three members alleging that they were biased in favour of the farm laws.
This affidavit will come up for consideration by the top court on Wednesday along with an application by Delhi Police to restrain protesting farmer organizations from taking out a Tractor Rally on Republic Day.