Times View

NEW DELHI: A row has erupted between Delhi law minister Somnath Bharti and law secretary AS Yadav . Last week, Bharti is learned to have rebuked Yadav when the latter expressed his inability to convene a meeting of all Delhi court judges at the state secretariat.According to sources in the high court and the state government's law department, Yadav told the minister that the judiciary is independent of the executive and only the Delhi high court can summon a meeting of judges.Yadav, a district judge who is on deputation, tried to reason with Bharti — himself a lawyer with an IIT background — that it was unthinkable for a minister or anyone representing the executive to summon a meeting of the judges. He said Delhi high court exercises exclusive administrative jurisdiction over judges in the state.Sources said Yadav's contention did not go down well with Bharti, who accused him of being loyal to the old regime, and of deliberately trying to place obstacles in the way of the AAP government 's plan to ensure speedy delivery of justice.Yadav has since written a letter to Delhi Chief Justice NV Ramana , apprising him of the development, sources said. He is learned to have also met the chief justice and requested that he be repatriated to the judiciary.Sources said that an upset Yadav told the chief justice that it had become difficult for him to work in the present atmosphere, and he would like to return to his parent cadre as district judge. Chief Justice Ramana, however, is learned to have assured Yadav that the HC would protect him against any vindictive action by the executive.When TOI contacted Bharti, he defended his initiative to reach out to the judiciary and blamed the law secretary for sitting on his request to fix up a meeting with the Delhi high court's Chief Justice."I have been doing whatever is possible to ensure two things — that the poorest of poor be given justice and every penny spent by the government is accounted for. As the law minister, I have a duty towards my people. I wanted to have this meeting because judicial and legal reforms are my priority. Unless I interact with the judiciary, how will I address their problem or that of the litigants? I am not aware of the protocol so I asked the secretary to advise me on these things. But when I asked him for such a meeting, he said we have to seek permission from the Delhi high court. For every small thing he says only the HC can do, only HC has the jurisdiction, we have to seek permission from HC. What is the responsibility of the law minister?" Bharti said.According to the minister, he then told the law secretary to arrange a meeting with the Chief Justice. "I asked him to write a letter to the high court registrar general so that I can meet the Chief Justice. He hasn't done that and instead now complained about me. My agenda is very clear — to get justice to the poor and usher in judicial reforms."When contacted, Yadav refused to comment on the incident but said he had written a letter to the Chief Justice last week to apprise him about it. The office of the Chief Justice confirmed receiving a letter from Yadav.The Supreme Court has consistently held that separation of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It had clearly said so in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. In the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case judgment in 1975, the court had said: "Although there is in the Constitution of India no rigid separation of powers, by and large the spheres of judicial function and legislative function have been demarcated and it is not permissible for the legislature to encroach upon the judicial sphere."AAP ministers are in a hurry to make a difference. That is understandable. So is their apparent inexperience. Therefore, they need to be doubly careful. Or else, they will make errors and incur a heavy political cost. They need to realise that not all traditions —like the separation of the judiciary from the executive — can or should be changed. Many practices have been put in place for good reason, and brusquely dismissing them can only adversely affect the enormous public goodwill that AAP enjoys at present.