The Supreme Court of Belgium is expected to withdraw its recommendation to appoint an additional judge in the Bombay High Court Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala as a permanent judge of the court after reviewing his two recent decisions on the definition of sexual harassment under the Ombudsman. Children’s Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) Act.
Sources told the Sunday Express that the college was considering its options to return a judge to a court of law from its nomination in February 2019 or extend its probation by a few years – and added that it may have a last resort.
In the past, the Supreme Court’s unique internal appeal process has led to indirect interference – from temporary resignation applications to securing separate legal appointments – while dealing with concerns about judges’ conduct in a non-permanent court.
It is learned that by violating this meeting, the college could not only set an example of direct intervention when the judge’s actions were still being considered but also send a strong message to the judges to adhere to the merits of the case.
“The only issue that was marked before the college was that of judicial quality and nothing else. There is no doubt about the judge’s chances or integrity, ”a source told The Sunday Express.
On January 19, Justice Ganediwala acquitted a man who sexually abused him on the grounds that pressing a child’s breasts over his clothes without direct contact with “skin and skin” does not mean “sexual abuse” which was under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
Saying that Section 8 of the POCSO provides for a maximum of five years’ severe imprisonment, he recognized that “strong evidence and serious allegations are required”. The man was therefore convicted of “minor offenses 35 s of IPC and sentenced to RI,” the judge said. The maximum sentence is five years and at least one year for offenses committed under this section. On January 27, the Supreme Court upheld the decision.
Born in 1969 in Paratwada in the Maharashtra district of Amravati, Justice Ganediwala was directly nominated as a district judge in 2007. He represented the board of trustees of banks and insurance companies and also taught at various colleges in Amravati and Amravati University.
Appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Ganediwala’s name was first upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2017 and appeared before the SC college in September 2018 along with five other judicial authorities from the government. The college has postponed his appointment.
As for Smt. P.V. Ganediwala, Chief Justice… with a written review and all relevant facts, his case should be postponed. This proposal will be considered by Collegiy after some time, ”the college said in a statement on September 11, 2018.
The three-member college at the time included CJI Dipak Misra at the time, judges Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur.
The High Court recommendation was also raised in January 2019 when the college included former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, former Justice AK Sikri and (then) Justice S A Bobde.
At this point, on January 16, 2019, the college stated: “In view of all that is right, College has a vision of what is known as Smt. P V Ganediwala, Chief Justice, is ready to be appointed as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. ”
The Sunday Express has learned that the college received two strong notes from Bombay High Court judges A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. Apart from this, the college sent its recommendations and was subsequently appointed as an additional judge.
“Even then the issue was the validity of his judgments. It appeared that the judge was more knowledgeable in teaching than in the legal profession, ”said the source.
Although the top three SC judges, led by the CJI, form a college that decides on the appointment of judges to HCs, judges accustomed to the work of certain high courts are influenced by their views.
Additional judges of the Supreme Court are appointed from the Bar directly or from the state courts under Article 224 (1) of the Constitution for a period not exceeding two years.
The retirement age for additional judges in the high courts is also 62 years. Some judicial positions are constitutionally intended to address the “increased court burden” but are increasingly used as probationary periods before being promoted to permanent judge.
This is because once a judge has been made a permanent judge, constitutional soldiers begin to defend them to be removed from office – under the constitution, a reduction of a judge is the only way to remove a judge of a constitutional court from office.