Noting that there is a political angle to the whole religious intolerance debate, Chief Justice of India Tirath Singh Thakur sent a strong message against divisive forces, saying that India is an inclusive society where people of all faiths and religions flourish with mutual respect and the Supreme Court will ensure that the Rule of Law reigns supreme.
“When the Constitution guarantees Rule of Law to those who are not our citizens, there is no question that citizens of India, no matter of what religion or faith should feel unprotected. We (Supreme Court) have no reluctance to protect the beliefs of our fellow citizens. As long as Rule of Law prevails no one has to be afraid,” Chief Justice Thakur said during a media interaction at his residence on Sunday.
"As long as there is rule of law and independent Judiciary, I don't think anyone need to fear from anything. We should not get upset, " he said.
> Chief Justice Thakur, who was sworn in as Chief Justice of India on December 3 and will have tenure till January 2017, said the spirit of India is tolerance and not intolerance.
“There is politics in the religious intolerance debate. But I am not a politician. As a part of the judicial institution, I want to remind you that this country has a history of becoming a home to those who have fled their own countries fearing religious persecution. Here these people of different faiths and beliefs have flourished. Look at the Parsi community, they have contributed so much to national progress in the fields of law, industry, etc,” Chief Justice Thakur pointed out.
When asked by The Hindu why the highest judiciary did not use its extraordinary jurisdiction powers to take suo motu cognizance of attack and murders of activists and writers like > Dabholkar , Pansare and > Kalburgi , Chief Justice Thakur said an order from the Supreme Court will not stop the killings.
“ We can ensure protection to all sections of society. ”
“You think one order from the Supreme Court will stop crime? Crime has been part of human life. These are people who give in to their animal instinct to kill… What the society should learn to nurture is the spirit of tolerance, mutual respect for religions… We are committed to uphold the Constitution,” Chief Justice Thakur replied.
He said there would be zero tolerance towards “devious behaviour” or corruption within the judiciary and appropriate action would be taken if complaints received are found to be genuine on scrutiny.
On the issue of rising judicial vacancies in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Thakur said he would prefer to wait till the five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar finalise and pronounce the guidelines for the Collegium.
“It should not be the case that the Collegium makes appointments of judges first and later discovers that the appointment made were not in consonance with the Constitution Bench’s guidelines. It is better to avoid such confusion and wait till the Constitution Bench pronounces the verdict on the Collegium. It is also not proper for us to make fresh appointments when a Constitution Bench has already reserved the case for judgment,” Chief Justice Thakur made his position clear.
He however said filling up the current 400 judicial vacancies would be a “big challenge” in this year. He said a proposal to increase the retirement age of High Court judges from 62 to 65 is pending and would require an amendment in the law. He said retired judges who are good can also be appointed as ad hoc judges
Citing his criteria in making judicial appointments, CJI Thakur said “we may have more women judges”. He said there should be a balance between regional representation and merit while appointing judges.
On post-retirement jobs for judges, Chief Justice Thakur said “if you don’t need judges anywhere in any jobs, change the law. If you can find a substitute in a politician or a bureaucrat, change the law. If judges are of no use to you, change the law.”
Asked whether he considered death penalty to be a civilized method of punishment of crime, Chief Justice Thakur agreed that there is a strong feeling against courts awarding death penalty even in the rarest of rare cases.
“But as long as the statute allows it, we have no choice. The parliament has to change the law. I believe that there are certain offences, terrorism and heinous crimes, for which a court finds the accused guilty, the only punishment is death ,” the Chief Justice of India said.
Concerning the release of the juvenile accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, Chief Justice Thakur said amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act is before the parliament and the Supreme Court has kept aside similar cases of juveniles accused of heinous crimes to wait for the final word from the law makers.
