I am sure, I am the last one to write this pick in my Editorial as the dispute that I delve here was a matter of about one month old. Then what made me to write this issue now? I am a one-man who runs www.faqsonlaw.in and I am a one man who feeds a family of five so to feed my family, I can’t be callous with my Clients, hence work comes first to me then my hobby of enlightening people on laws and law related events happening in the Country.

Even otherwise, today I write this Editorial, because a rarest of the rare human being lived in this Earth in the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, in short M. K. Gandhi and I wanted to relate his own issue regarding Bar and Bench [which is history. And many of us not knew or read about it but it was elaborately discussed by him in his Autobiography; My Experiments with Truth in Chapter 18 under the header; Colour Bar]. Our Mahatma writes as follows;

The Chief Justice said in effect:

‘The objection that the applicant has not attached the original certificate has no substance. If he has made a false affidavit, he can be prosecuted, and his name can then be struck off the roll, if he is proved guilty. The law makes no distinction between white and coloured people. The Court has therefore no authority to prevent Mr. Gandhi from being enrolled as an Advocate. We admit his application. Mr. Gandhi, you can now take oath.’

The above verbal order came from the Supreme Court Judge on the follow-up of a legal battle initiated by Mahatma over his enrollment to practice in the Supreme Court. Earlier, Mahatma’s Application was rejected by the Supreme Court Bar on the grounds that it did not contain a Certificate of approval from a European Advocate. That’s why the title of this particular Chapter referred by Mahatma as “Colour Bar.”

The other day I received a flyer from one of my Well Wishers in my WhatsApp number and the Flyer had an image of the present Chief Justice of India and below a statement [as it came from him];

“Police officers who join hands with government & make money illegally have to face consequences after the change in ruling dispensation. Such cops must not be protected & rather they should be jailed.”          

I am not sure on what occasion this particular statement was made and became viral so to reach our WhatsApp? But I disagree with such statement because the onus of burden on the judiciary to punish an Accused today and the same cannot be deferred for tomorrow! But I replied to my Well Wisher as follows; “Great comment but backed by no action.”

The reason for my reply to above comments was an outcome of understanding of ground realities. But when I replied it, I had something in my mind and which was literally agitating me for about a month.

We Advocates manier times go with the stream to its own course then obstructing it like a strong wall diverting the wrong course of the stream – what we were dictated of by our Bar or the Bench.

What agitated me?

This is a painful story of a Second Senior Most Judge of our Country, Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi, who is now Chief Justice of Tripura High Court, Country’s smallest High Court in terms of Judges’ strength to just 4 in numbers. The most adorable man in the Indian judiciary who was supposed to sit on the dais of the Supreme Court was made to sit in the High Court by none other Supreme Court Collegium. Why?

The answer is so bizarre and painful for a common man lest forget Advocates!

We all knew recently nine judges were appointed to the Supreme Court and those Judges were recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium. Wherein, the name of the second most senior Judge in India, Mr. Akil Kureshi’s name was not recommended by the Collegium.

Neutral media reports suggest that Mr. Akil Kureshi was a one who sent the present Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, to Police custody in Sohrabuddin Murder case and the Collegium did not want any confrontation with the present dispensation hence undrawn his name in the recommended Judges’ list.

In fact at the first instance our wisdom tells us that such corroboration of historical evidences not in good taste.

However, fact after facts coming on the genuine media make us to believe that the history was right if one go by retired Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman who never signed the list of Judges recommended by the Collegium without Akil Kureshi’s name. Fortunately, Justice Nariman was part of the Collegium and till his retirement on 12 August 2021 he singly objected to the Collegium’s decision to not to include name of Akil Kureshi. And immediately after his superannuation the present Collegium sent the list to the Union Government and got approved of Nine Judges who are appointed now.

About eight decades ago when the Bar objected our Mahatma from being enrolled in the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court Judge came to his rescue and found colour comparison was not a principle of justice delivery system. 80 years passed by now, today name of the Bar is Collegium which ruthlessly encouraged nepotism in judicial appointment and poor Akil Kureshi being a modest man and never inclined to bring the rank and profile of the judiciary mudslinging, politely yet humbly submitted to the whims and fancies of the nepotism. That’s why I replied to a WhatsApp Flyer:  “Great comment but backed by no action.”

Mahatma’s modesty is alive today in people like Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and www.faqsonlaw salutes this man for his humbleness in accepting Chief Justiceship of Tripura High Court. Otherwise, High Courts are High Courts – strength [number of judges of a HC] makes no difference but quality of judgments makes difference of a High Court and he is there.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi’s family chain has a strong link with our Mahatma’s family. Probably that made him modest of the Mahatma’s!