CJI bench: Criticism of apex court judgments no affront to judiciary | India News

He produced an NCERT textbook that contained the passage: “However, there are also court judgments which people believe act against the best interests of the common man. For example, activists working on issues related to shelter and right to housing for the poor believe that recent judgments on evictions are far removed from earlier judgments.”While recent judgments have tended to view the slum dweller as an occupier of the city, earlier judgments (such as 1985 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation) sought to protect the livelihood of the slum dwellers,” reads the passage in the NCERT textbook.Reading the passage aloud, the CJI-led bench said there was nothing objectionable in it. “This is a view on the judgement. People have the right to criticize the judgment of the court.Criticism of the judgment does not stand on the same ground as the previous case (textbook reference to corruption in the judiciary),” the CJI said. The bench disposed of the plea.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the court and found it difficult to assuage the hurt sentiments of the judiciary due to the now-deleted reference to judicial corruption in the Class 8 social science textbook, immediately told the court that the Center had already constituted a panel of eminent jurists – former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra and former General Ventop KK on the review. Judiciary in all school textbooks on the advice of National Judicial Academy Chairperson Justice Aniruddha Bose.The Chief Justice of India said, “In a given case, the view of the court was that people have no right over the land, they are squatters and can therefore be evicted. Other people may say that these people have been living on that land for 10-15 years and therefore they have a right to stay there. That is their perception and that is their view.”“If someone says that the view taken by the court is wrong, there is nothing wrong with that,” the bench said. Mehta said, “The perception that an uninformed person would gather from a judgment can never be the concern of the judiciary. An incognito person can have any perception of the judiciary.”