Judging from press reports in regard to the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae(friend of the court), Raju Ramchandran, in two recent cases, one wonders whether this specific appointment is really serving any useful purpose in objectively and impartially assisting the court. The two cases are:The SC-appointed SIT's findings on Narendra Modi and his Gujarat govt's alleged involvement in the 2002 riots and the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist carnage in which the lone surviving convict Ajmal Kasab is facing death sentence. The role of the amicus curiae-Raju Ramchandran, appears quite dubious. It seems more like performance of a defence lawyer rather than that of a "friend of the court". In the Modi case, the gentleman cast doubts on the SIT report to the metropolitan court, reportedly exonerating Modi and his govt; instead, he seemed to favour the Modi-accusers like the IPS officer MS Bhatt, himself facing charges and is under suspension; he also reportedly pleaded in favour of criminal Kasab, describing him as a minor terror accomplice deserving mercy!
Given the above facts, shouldn't the apex court look into the necessity and utility of the institutional appointment of an amicus curiae?
Given the above facts, shouldn't the apex court look into the necessity and utility of the institutional appointment of an amicus curiae?
No comments:
Post a Comment