Prashant Bhushan began practising as an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India in 1983, specialising in Public Interest Litigation. His main areas of interest have been human rights, the environment and ensuring that public servants are accountable.
Live Law: How is Judicial Appointment Commission, as you propose, different from National Judicial Commission?
Prashant Bhushan: National Judicial Commission, as the government has proposed, is an ex-officio body of some functionaries of the government and some judges, but they will not have the time to do this job properly. If one has to do selection properly, one will have to spend time over it. One will be required to go through the credentials of large number of entities and then make a selection from amongst them in a proper systematic and non-arbitrary manner. That requires time.
Law Minister, CJI, etc. do not have the time to do this. One needs a full time body consisting of retired judges, eminent people from civil society and retired officials to be able to do this. In England, the Judicial Appointment Commission which was created as part of the reforms following Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 is a non–departmental public body. It consists of members of civil society, judges and members from the legal profession.
Live Law: The leader of the opposition has talked about how the clamour for post retirement jobs is affecting the independence of the Judiciary. Your view?
Prashant Bhushan: This is because the power of assigning these post retirement jobs is with the government. Therefore, government can patronise judges by giving them jobs when they retire and that compromises their independence. But if this selection is being done by different people then there will be no problem.
For instance, what we have argued in the case of Lokpal there could be a selection committee consisting of seven people, out of which two would be from the political class who would have conflict of interest i.e. Prime Minister and leader of opposition; and the five others would be outside the political class.
Live Law: Many legal pundits have argued instead of immediately appointing judges to a post retirement job, a “cooling off” period of two years would suffice and that such a system will no longer interfere with this system. Do you agree with this?
Prashant Bhushan: Yes, of course. But what I feel is that with respect to retired judges, what jobs should be given to them should be decided by the same Judicial Appointment Commission. If at all retired judges are to be given jobs, it should not be decided by the government.
Live Law: From wanting to become a philosopher to becoming a very successful lawyer, how would you describe your journey?
Prashant Bhushan: Well, I got into law partly because my father was a very successful lawyer. I kind of got into it inadvertently but when I got into it, I got more and more involved with public interest issues of all kinds. My interest became very wide and varied. When any issue of public interest arose, whether it pertained to civil liberty, human rights, corruption, environmental issues or socio-economic rights of the poor, I would happily get involved.
Soon, I realized that law should not be seen as means of making money, but as means of making substantial contribution to the cause of justice. One of the great things of being a public interest lawyer is that you come to learn about a large number of important public issues from the persons who are experts in the field on a one-to-one basis, something you could never do otherwise. It’s a very rich and rewarding experience.
Live Law: What advice would you give to young budding lawyers?
Prashant Bhushan: Do not look at law as a means for making money. Look at law as an instrument for securing justice to people. Engage in issues of public interest. They should understand what is happening in the country and society and should use their professional skills to secure justice to people.
Today, very little justice is being done for the poor of the country. Most people do not have access to the judicial system at all or a chance to go to a lawyer, and if they do, most of them languish in court for decades. Even the cases that are decided are very often decided for wrong consideration for corruption and incompetence. There are very few people who are able to get effective justice in the country. Lawyers are too busy making money without contributing much to the cause of justice.
Live Law: How is Judicial Appointment Commission, as you propose, different from National Judicial Commission?
Prashant Bhushan: National Judicial Commission, as the government has proposed, is an ex-officio body of some functionaries of the government and some judges, but they will not have the time to do this job properly. If one has to do selection properly, one will have to spend time over it. One will be required to go through the credentials of large number of entities and then make a selection from amongst them in a proper systematic and non-arbitrary manner. That requires time.
Law Minister, CJI, etc. do not have the time to do this. One needs a full time body consisting of retired judges, eminent people from civil society and retired officials to be able to do this. In England, the Judicial Appointment Commission which was created as part of the reforms following Constitutional Reforms Act, 2005 is a non–departmental public body. It consists of members of civil society, judges and members from the legal profession.
Live Law: The leader of the opposition has talked about how the clamour for post retirement jobs is affecting the independence of the Judiciary. Your view?
Prashant Bhushan: This is because the power of assigning these post retirement jobs is with the government. Therefore, government can patronise judges by giving them jobs when they retire and that compromises their independence. But if this selection is being done by different people then there will be no problem.
For instance, what we have argued in the case of Lokpal there could be a selection committee consisting of seven people, out of which two would be from the political class who would have conflict of interest i.e. Prime Minister and leader of opposition; and the five others would be outside the political class.
Live Law: Many legal pundits have argued instead of immediately appointing judges to a post retirement job, a “cooling off” period of two years would suffice and that such a system will no longer interfere with this system. Do you agree with this?
Prashant Bhushan: Yes, of course. But what I feel is that with respect to retired judges, what jobs should be given to them should be decided by the same Judicial Appointment Commission. If at all retired judges are to be given jobs, it should not be decided by the government.
Live Law: From wanting to become a philosopher to becoming a very successful lawyer, how would you describe your journey?
Prashant Bhushan: Well, I got into law partly because my father was a very successful lawyer. I kind of got into it inadvertently but when I got into it, I got more and more involved with public interest issues of all kinds. My interest became very wide and varied. When any issue of public interest arose, whether it pertained to civil liberty, human rights, corruption, environmental issues or socio-economic rights of the poor, I would happily get involved.
Soon, I realized that law should not be seen as means of making money, but as means of making substantial contribution to the cause of justice. One of the great things of being a public interest lawyer is that you come to learn about a large number of important public issues from the persons who are experts in the field on a one-to-one basis, something you could never do otherwise. It’s a very rich and rewarding experience.
Live Law: What advice would you give to young budding lawyers?
Prashant Bhushan: Do not look at law as a means for making money. Look at law as an instrument for securing justice to people. Engage in issues of public interest. They should understand what is happening in the country and society and should use their professional skills to secure justice to people.
Today, very little justice is being done for the poor of the country. Most people do not have access to the judicial system at all or a chance to go to a lawyer, and if they do, most of them languish in court for decades. Even the cases that are decided are very often decided for wrong consideration for corruption and incompetence. There are very few people who are able to get effective justice in the country. Lawyers are too busy making money without contributing much to the cause of justice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment