X: @prashanthamine
Mumbai: It is no longer the question about Julius Caesar’s wife being above suspicion in Justice Yashwant Varma’s case. It is all about Caesar using dubious means to not just clear his wife of any suspicion, his friend Clodius from the gallows and at the same time plotting his path to power in Rome. The meaning of the proverb is that if one is romantically involved with a famous or prominent figure, one must avoid attracting negative attention or scrutiny.
Julius Caesar had divorced his wife Pompeia in 62 BC saying that “my wife ought not even to be under suspicion”. The actual ground of divorce was believed to be that Caesar suspected Pompeia of adultery over her alleged affair with Publius Clodius Pulcher.
It was altogether a different matter that Clodius was widely believed to be a puppet in the hands of Caesar who used him to plot his pathway to eventually becoming the dictator of Rome.
According to the ancient Roman story Clodius had an affair with Caesar’s wife and wanted to see her perform rituals at the Bona Dea festival which was meant only for Vestal Virgins. Even male animals were not allowed to see the rituals performed to invoke the blessings of the Good Goddess of health and fertility. Clodius dressed up as a woman sneaked into the house where the rituals were being held and narrowly escaped being caught.
Clodius was escorted out by a slave girl. Later in his testimony at the trial of Clodius, Caesar was asked as to why he had divorced his wife. To which Caesar strangely replied that he knew nothing as to why Clodius was charged with and added that “I thought my wife ought not even to be under suspicion”. Clodius narrowly escaped the death penalty as the grand jury was suspected to be bribed. In doing so he also saved Pompeia from the taint by divorcing her before the trial began.
Why are we narrating an ancient Roman tale here because it’s often quoted to set moral, ethical and integrity benchmarks for people in high public office?
The actions of the Supreme Court Collegium in merely transferring Justice Yashwant Varma back to Allahabad High Court after alleged recovery of cash being found at his official residence in New Delhi on March 14. Although the SC may have issued a clarification that Justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was independent and separate from the in-house enquiry procedure, it still leaves everybody under a cloud of suspicion.
Moreover, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (AHCBA) has come out openly against the transfer of Justice Varma back to Allahabad High Court remarking that they should not be treated as some sort of a dustbin or a trash can.
The Delhi Fire Service (DFS) media statement and the absence of the alleged recovery of the cash has fuelled more speculation and suspicion. What is more intriguing is the fact that the action on Justice Varma comes almost six days after the incident first came to light? That the DFS has now further clarified that no cash was recovered from the residence of Justice Varma raises more questions than answers.
The alleged scandal has once again brought into limelight the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act that was passed by the Parliament in December 2014, and later struck down by the Supreme Court in October 2015. The stalled law was contentious for inclusion of so-called “eminent persons” without any criteria, and the other criteria of five members of the six member commission agree to the recommendation of names made, or otherwise the recommendations cannot be carried through.
The Collegium system which has been described by many as opaque was supposed to have been done away with post 1990 following the 67th Constitutional Amendment. According to critics there is no procedure to check the reasonableness of the appointment being made in the Collegium system. Both the government and the judiciary could do well to examine the procedures of appointments of judges in France, Australia and the USA.
That is why the action taken on Justice Yashwant Varma leaves a lot to be desired. Although Article 32 grants extensive original jurisdiction to the apex court in enforcing fundamental rights, it however, raises questions as to why the judiciary is edgy when it comes to questions being raised on its own actions. If the government opts for the Impeachment of Justice Varma, then it will set the judiciary and the government on a collision course.
Neither should anyone ask as to why there are more than 4.55 crore pending cases in all the courts in India. About 7.59 lakh cases are Pre-Trial or Pre-Litigation cases (pending for want of lawyers or absconding accused). About 73% to 82% pending cases are Criminal cases, as per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). According to one judicial academic study it will take about 466 years to clear all the pending cases even if it means disposing one case every five minutes.
There are over 4.34 lakh under-trails languishing in jails across the country as of today. Some are languishing in jails as they cannot afford the lawyers’ fees, bail amounts or their bail applications are not expeditiously heard, or it takes years if not decades for their cases to come up for hearing before the court.
Although the Supreme Court is functioning at its full strength of 34 judges, there are 331 vacancies of judges in High Courts across the country. It would do well if more divisional benches of the High Court are created clubbing more than one or two districts in a large state like Maharashtra. Like in the USA, there are benches of the Supreme Court in states, India could well have at least metro-city benches which would save litigants time and money to travel all the way to New Delhi just to attend a hearing of their case in the apex court.
Here we share the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) with you.
National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
Total No of Pending Cases – SC, HC, DC & Lower Courts.
Civil Cases – 1, 09, 00,173
More than 1 Year old cases – 75, 71,611 (69.46%)
Criminal Cases – 3, 46, 09,849
More than 1 Year old cases – 2, 54, 06,172 (73.41%)
Total Cases – 4, 55, 10,022
More than 1 Year old cases – 3, 29, 77,783 (72.46%)
Pre-Litigation/Pre-Trial Cases – 12, 23,099
More than 1 Year old cases – 7, 59,685 (62.11%)
Age wise pending cases.
Less than 1 year – 28%.
Civil – 27% – 33, 28,562
Criminal – 73% – 92, 03,677
1 to 3 years – 28%
Civil – 25% – 32, 38,036
Criminal – 75% – 96, 30,540
3 to 5 years – 14%
Civil – 23% – 14, 65,653
Criminal – 77% – 47, 89,462
5 to 10 years – 20%
Civil – 22% – 20, 12,104
Criminal – 78% – 71, 91,687
Above 10 years – 10%
Civil – 18% – 8, 57,818
Criminal – 82% – 37, 94,483
According to one judicial academic study it will take 466 years to clear all pending cases.
As of January 29, 2024 Vacancies in Courts in India:
The Supreme Court – sanctioned strength 34 Judges. No vacancies.
High Courts – sanctioned strength 1,114 Judges. 783 Judges working. Vacancies 331.
State/UT-wise total number of prisoners and under-trial prisoners lodged in the jails of the country as on 31.12.2022.
Total number of Prisoners – All India – 5, 73,220
Total number of Under-Trials – All India – 4, 34,302
Source – https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_v3/
لیست کامل دروس نهایی خرداد پایه یازدهم و دوازدهم، در نظام آموزشی کشور ایران، امتحانات نهایی یکی از مهمترین بخشهای ارزیابی عملکرد دانشآموزان
در مقاطع مختلف تحصیلی به شمار میرود.
کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه علمی کاربردی، به دلیل تمرکز دانشگاه علمی کاربردی بر آموزشهای عملی و کاربردی، افراد زیادی خواهان تحصیل در مقطع کارشناسی ارشد این دانشگاه هستند.