'Hypocrisy': Law panel member on 'silence' of group of 18 judges as an advocate targets sitting Delhi HC judge

New Delhi, Sep 4 (IANS) Law Commission member Hitesh Jain on Thursday questioned the “selective” silence of a group of 18 retired judges, who earlier criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah, over an advocate doubting the “integrity” of a sitting Delhi High Court judge.

The group of 18 ex-judges (G-18), including former Supreme Court Justices Kurien Joseph, Madan B. Lokur and J. Chelameswar, had last month criticised HM Shah’s “pro-Maoism” remarks against INDIA bloc vice-presidential nominee Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.

Training his guns on G-18, Jain asked on Thursday why they criticised HM Shah’s remarks as prone to shaking the “independence of the judiciary” and remained silent when senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, in a post on X, branded the sitting HC judge’s bail order “ridiculous”.

Jain wrote on X, “The mask has slipped so quickly. When HM Amit Shah criticised Justice Sudershan Reddy after he entered politics, 18 retired judges & activists rushed with an open letter on ‘chilling effect’.”

He wondered why G-18 was silent at a time when Bhushan had branded a judge’s bail order “ridiculous” and questioned the judge’s integrity.

“The same 18 are silent. Hypocrisy exposed, criticism is selective, partisan and driven by convenience, not principle. As I’ve always maintained, this lobby runs only on a political agenda,” said Jain in a message on X.

Earlier, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, in a post on X, named the High Court judge and criticised the judge for the “ridiculous judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and others who have been in jail for 5 years without trial”.

Bhushan said the judge “retires today. Waiting to see what post-retirement job… will be given”.

Earlier, the G-18 had dubbed as “prejudicial misinterpretation” the “pro-Maoism” charge levelled by HM Shah against Justice Reddy.

The group said that HM Shah’s remarks would have “a chilling effect on the judges of the Supreme Court, shaking the independence of the judiciary”.

Soon after the G-18 released an open letter, the group was strongly admonished by a group of 56 ex-judges (G-56), saying that their statements were determined to cloak their political partisanship under the language of judicial independence.

The G-56 also cautioned their brother judges from frequently issuing statements on political developments.

Jain’s post on X on Thursday has revived the issue of political partisanship, as pointed out by G-56.

Jain is a member of the 23rd Law Commission of India that was constituted on September 1, 2024, and has a tenure ending on August 31, 2027.

The 12-member Commission was constituted to review and recommend legal reforms, focusing on simplifying laws, addressing law and poverty, improving judicial administration, implementing Directive Principles of State Policy, and strengthening gender equality.

--IANS

rch/dan