*It’s sorry state of affairs, remarks CJ
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Mar 18: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice B L Bhat today reprimanded the State Government for sleeping over the resolution adopted in Chief Justices’ Conference during the last over one an half year and directed the State to apprise the court about its clear stand on the same by Monday.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Rufi Khan and others came up for hearing, Advocate Rohit Kapoor appearing for the petitioners (final year students of Graduation in Law, University of Jammu), submitted, “the Cabinet order on which the State Government is banking upon to avoid implementation of the resolution of Chief Justices’ Conference, was issued in 2010”.
Quoting the status report filed by the Law Department, Advocate Kapoor said that the issue of change of Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority from Law Secretary to a member of the Higher Judicial Service was placed before the Cabinet on October 2010 whereby the status quo was directed to be maintained. However, the resolution in Chief Justices’ Conference was passed in April 2013.
“There is nothing on record to suggest that subsequent to the adoption of this resolution the issue was discussed in the State Cabinet”, he pointed out and asked how come the Cabinet decision prior to the adoption of resolution can be the justifiable ground for non-implementation of the decision.
The resolution states: The post of Law Secretary, Legal Remembrancer and Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority must be manned by the Principal District Judges or District Judges instead of IAS officers and steps be taken with the concerned State Governments to implement the same expeditiously but preferably within three months.
Advocate Kapoor, in the open court, further said, “This is vital in view of the functional requirements for administration of justice. Having the experience in the legal profession and being Member of Higher Judicial Services of the State, District & Sessions Judges are in a better position to perform variegated legal tasks of the office including evaluating suitability of a person to be considered for the assignment of public prosecutor and law officer”.
However, Senior Additional Advocate General, Gagan Basotra submitted that Law Department has clarified on the subject in the status report filed in pursuance to earlier directions.
The status report says: As per J&K State Legal Services Authority Act, Secretary to Government, Law Department is the ex-official Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority. The primary function of the Member Secretary is to coordinate and liaise between SLSA and the Government for which Secretary to Government Law Department is the best choice.
“It is a conscious decision of the State Legislature keeping in view the requirement of the situation. Moreover, to have a re-look on the present position is not the prerogative of the judiciary but only of the State Legislature”, said the status report, adding “a judicial officer from Higher Judicial Service is not eligible to be appointed as Secretary, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs in terms of J&K Legal (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, which state that a member of J&K Legal (Gazetted) Service only can be appointed as Secretary to Government Law Department and nobody else.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the status report, the Chief Justice, in the open court, remarked, “this is sorry state of affairs. How can you justify the Cabinet decision of 2010 as ground for non implementation of resolution adopted in 2013”.
The DB, in the open court, asked, “how many times Law Department officials visited the Lok Adalats….how many times they have monitored the entire exercise”, adding “the State is required to clear its stand and come up with any decision taken subsequent to the passing of resolution in Chief Justices’ Conference”.
For this, the DB granted time till Monday.
Follow our WhatsApp channel