Temple Desecration and Violence Becoming a Common Problem
In recent times, incidents of temple idol desecration and communal violence have become frequent and concerning. The government’s response to these situations, in an attempt to deliver quick justice, often ignores the principles of the Constitution and criminal law. While the idea of “bulldozer justice” may seem appealing to some, particularly victims of such violence, it does not align with legal procedures and logical reasoning.
The Supreme Court has also criticized such actions by the government, stating they are not in accordance with the rule of law.
Balancing Quick Action and Justice
On the other hand, the government must also ensure that it does not delay addressing sensitive issues like communal violence and vandalism. Delays can send the wrong message to the public about the government’s ability to manage serious situations. No government, whether in a democracy or another system, can afford to take too long to respond to matters that greatly affect society.
Tackling Case Backlogs
There is a significant backlog of over five crore cases in the lower courts, with many more in high courts, the Supreme Court, and tribunals. This backlog leads to long delays in delivering justice. To address this, the government must prioritize finding effective and timely solutions.
Fast Track Courts as a Solution
One potential solution is the establishment of Fast Track Courts (FTCs) across the country. Serious cases, such as idol desecration, communal violence, and other offenses that impact national unity, should be handled quickly by these courts. The State should also ensure that police forces have enough manpower to investigate such cases efficiently.
By setting strict timelines for appeals and petitions, including mercy petitions, the judicial process can be sped up. This approach would be a legal and efficient alternative to “bulldozer justice.”
Justice Sanjiv Khanna to be Next Chief Justice of India
Following the retirement of Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud on November 8, Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take over as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI). His appointment was officially announced by the President on October 24. Dr. Chandrachud had earlier proposed Justice Khanna’s name as his successor, maintaining the tradition.
Justice Khanna will take his oath on November 11 and will serve as CJI until May 13, 2025, when he reaches the retirement age of 65.
Supreme Court Ruling on Industrial Alcohol
In a landmark judgment, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to regulate denatured spirits or industrial alcohol. This ruling overturned an earlier seven-judge judgment from the Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case.
While eight judges supported the majority decision, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented. The case revolved around the interpretation of the term “intoxicating liquor” under the State List in the Constitution.
Hyderabad Court Issues Injunction Against Minister
A court in Nampally, Hyderabad, has placed a temporary order stopping Telangana minister Konda Surekha from making defamatory statements against BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao. This follows a defamation case filed by Rao against Surekha.
Judges Appointed for Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts
On October 24, a presidential order confirmed the appointment of three advocates as Additional Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The new judges are Maheswara Rao Kuncham, Thoota Chandra Dhana Sekar, and Challa Gunaranjan.
On October 23, five new Additional Judges were also appointed for the Bombay High Court. They are Nivedita Prakash Mehta, Prafulla Surendra Kumar Khubalkar, Aswin Damodar Bobde, Rohit Wasudeo Joshi, and Adwait Mahendra Sethna.
Controversy Over New Supreme Court Emblem and Lady Justice Statue
A new emblem for the Supreme Court and a statue of Lady Justice without her traditional blindfold, sword, and western attire have sparked controversy. Many in the legal community welcomed the changes as a step away from colonial traditions.
However, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has expressed dissatisfaction. They argue that the Bar was not consulted before these major changes were made. The SCBA also raised concerns about the transformation of the old judges’ library into a museum, which they had hoped would become a lounge and cafeteria.
