First among equals President of India

---

I knew of B. Verghese from the days when he was the chairperson of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. I was on the executive committee of CHRI, and he was a wonderful person to work with. Verghese was a pillar of strength in more ways than one for journalists, human rights activists and civil society in general.

He stood by and fought for democratic principles throughout, alongside other stalwarts like Jayaprakash Narayan and V. Most notably, I remember that during Emergency, his criticism of government policy led him to be removed from his role as editor of the Hindustan Times. Verghese stood for a great many things, which showed through all his actions and work — whether it was working for civil liberties and democratic rights, through his association with organisations like CHRI, PUCL and the like, or the idea of a free press, through symbolising what was meant by ideal journalism.

Write a review

Indeed, journalism was practically his mission. It goes without saying that he is greatly missed today, especially in this age when large sections of media have become propaganda machines, more than anything else. When I was asked to speak at this memorial lecture, I thought it would be most appropriate, and relevant, to speak of the proceedings that have lately besieged the institution I have been most closely associated with, the judiciary.

I want to start with a small anecdote.

In the late 19th century, the third chief justice of Victoria in Australia was one George Higinbotham, whose reputation as someone who was extremely thrifty, and who derided wealth was only too well known. His fees when practising as a lawyer were notoriously low, and he routinely distributed his earnings to the needy. One story of his when he was judge particularly stands out. As chief justice, he was entitled to a stipend of 3, pounds, which was pounds more than his fellow judges.

He was so uncomfortable at the prospect of being paid that extra amount, that he would spend the additional pounds on lavish entertainments, which were completely useless to him. His view was that as chief justice, he was merely primus inter pares , or first among equals.

In his official capacity, he was the chairperson and official representative of the bench, but in all respects, he regarded his powers to be identical to those of his fellow judges. Indeed, this is true of anywhere in the world, that is, a chief justice is merely first among equals. Another Australian judge, Sir Owen Dixon, captured this idea beautifully, in his speech on being sworn into the office of chief justice:.

There is no need for me to be cryptic about why I choose to speak on this subject. All of you are well aware of what it is that I am referring to. But it is worth recapturing just briefly, if only to re-emphasise the importance and gravity of the incident, which I worry that perhaps we have not fully grasped. Never before in the history of independent India, and certainly not in the history of the highest court of the land, had judges addressed the media through a press conference.

The crux of their allegation was that court conventions of bench-strength and bench-composition, in the allocation of cases, were not being followed. The judiciary in India is unarguably an institution that enjoys the trust of the people. It is perhaps one of the most powerful institutions in the country, and is highly regarded for having upheld constitutional principles time and again over the past decades.

This press conference and the allegations made by the judges brought to light many issues which have been simmering for several months, and which strike at the foundations of the institution. Today, I want to talk about these issues, the implications it has on the future of the judiciary, and the kinds of questions we need to be asking to ensure that our democratic system remains in good health. When the four judges held this press conference, some commentators speculated that this amounted to gross impropriety on their part, and their actions smacked of judicial misconduct. While they have not attempted to defend their actions thereafter, it seems unlikely that they would not have assessed the implications of these events.

Indeed, their actions actually suggest the contrary, that rather than being in breach of their code of conduct, they were perhaps displaying allegiance to the oath of office they took upon entering office. I believe that these four judges felt so troubled by the goings on in the judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular over the past few months that they felt driven to go public, for otherwise, they would be in transgression of their constitutional duties. In my mind there was no doubt as to the intentions behind the press conference.

All four of the judges involved risked something or the other in being a part of this public conference. In equal measure, the other three, although they will retire well before the current CJI does, have risked criticism from their peers, and perhaps also getting isolated from the bar and bench after they retire. This reminds me of an incident that took place when I was a judge in the Bombay high court. Around then, some serious allegations had been made against the then chief justice in Bombay high court. In this case, the senior judges took the lead against the chief justice.

They spoke to the bar privately, and they also involved some junior judges, and took them into their confidence. Eventually, the chief justice was made to resign by the Supreme Court.

First Among Equals President Of India 1950 To Present

The senior judges might well have gone to the press, had they been sufficiently disenchanted with the way things were. There are situations and situations that lead individuals to take action. In this regard, Justice M. In the case of Justice M. Chagla, in contrast to the story I just told you, however the pressure came from the government. The then chief minister of Bombay, Morarji Desai, had expressed disapproval at certain speeches Justice Chagla had made criticising government and policy. Justice Chagla, while agreeing with the chief minister Desai, that a judge should not take part in politics or discuss political issues, said that this rule was subject to two exceptions: In his book unambiguously titled Judges , the English baronet and barrister, David Pannick, captures this appropriately in his critical analysis of the Kilmuir Rules, set out in in the UK which prohibit judges from participation on radio and television.

Fortunately, this rule is no longer the norm in the UK. But it came about when the BBC asked Lord Chancellor Kilmuir to grant permission to certain judges to participate in a series of radio lectures about great judges of the past.

Pannick correctly argues that this ban had no justification, especially in the case of an independent judiciary. A judge should be fully entitled to speak out on matters of public concern so long as he does not give people cause for suspecting bias or partiality in the cases to be heard in his court and so long as he refrains from comment on matters of political controversy. Especially in circumstances that are considered damaging to the administration of justice, the silence of judges cannot possibly be justifiable.

Navigation menu

They are entitled, indeed, they have a public duty, to speak out of matters concerning the administration of justice. Closer to home, Justice M. Chagla, too, was only too aware of the consequences of silence. Several judges and lawyers expressed the view that these four should not have gone public, but should have attempted to resolve the matter internally. Some observers said that these four judges violated judicial ethics in going to the public in this fashion. He shall not give interviews to the media. But in the present context, neither of these guidelines — 8 or 9 — can be held up against the actions of the four judges.

Did they enter into public debate? On the contrary, they made only a public disclosure. They did not express views on political matters, or on matters pending for judicial determination. All members of the committee welcomed the deal. Read Post a comment. Login from existing account Facebook Google Email.

First among equals President of India Quotes

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter. All Comments Your Activity. We have sent you a verification email. To verify, just follow the link in the message. In the UK , the executive is the Cabinet, and during Hanoverian times a minister had the role of informing the monarch about proposed legislation in the House of Commons and other matters.

In modern times, however, although the phrase is still occasionally used, it understates the powers of the Prime Minister, which now include many broad, exclusive, executive powers over which cabinet members have little influence. First Among Equals is the title of a popular political novel by Jeffrey Archer , about the careers and private lives of several men vying to become British Prime Minister. It was later adapted into a ten-part miniseries, produced by Granada Television. Countries and jurisdictions that have adapted the British parliamentary system such as Canada and Australia would have the same use for the phrase.

The phrase "first among equals" has also been used to describe the Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief Justice has considerable administrative powers, and can assign the writing of decisions in cases in which he is in the majority, but has no direct control over the decisions of his colleagues on the Supreme Court of the United States. This situation is often found in supreme courts around the world.

In many private parliamentary bodies, such as clubs, boards, educational faculty, and committees, the officer or member who holds the position of chair or chairman is often regarded as a "first among equals". That is, while most rules of order will grant the chair special powers within the context of a meeting , the position of chair is usually temporary, rotating, and powerless in other contexts, making the occupant merely a temporary leader required to instil order.

This is the case for mayors under a council—manager government , as the "mayor" has the same vote as all other council members and cannot override them, although their opinion may have more sway among other members. The phrase "first among equals" is also used to describe the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople , who, as the Ecumenical Patriarch , is the first among all the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He has no direct jurisdiction over the other patriarchs or the other autocephalous Orthodox churches and cannot interfere in the election of bishops in autocephalous churches, but he alone enjoys the right of convening extraordinary synods consisting of them or their delegates to deal with ad hoc situations, and he has also convened well-attended Pan-Orthodox Synods in the last forty years.

His title is an acknowledgement of his historic significance and of his privilege to serve as primary spokesman for the Eastern Orthodox Communion. His moral authority is highly respected. The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses the term "first among equals" in regard to the Bishop of Rome during the first thousand years of Christianity. The canons relative to the universal primacy of honor of the Patriarch of Constantinople are the 9th canon of the synod of Antioch [9] and the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

Trending Topics

As such, the Roman Catholic Church does not see the Pope merely as being "first among equals", but as actually holding an office with supreme authority in canon law over all other bishops. This jurisdictional claim was one of the main causes of the East-West Schism in the Church, which became formal in The Dean of the College of Cardinals in the Catholic Church is generally considered to be the first among equal Prince of the Church in the College, which is the Pope's highest-ranking council and elects as conclave where an age limit applies the papal successor, generally from its ranks.

More commonly, dioceses are geographically grouped in an ecclesiastical province , where only one holds the rank of Metropolitan Archbishop , which outranks his colleagues, who are therefore called his suffragans , even if these include fairly rarely another Archbishop. In the Anglican Communion , the Archbishop of Canterbury is considered to be "first among equals" in his presidency over the Communion.

Leading bishops or primates in other Anglican 'national' churches are often said to be primus inter pares within their provinces e. Church of Ireland , while the first Primatial see of Canterbury remains primus among them. Based on the antiquity with which ecumenical councils have conceded some kind of universal primacy to the Bishops of Rome, participants in Anglican—Catholic dialogues have acknowledged for decades that the Pope would properly serve as the titular leader of a reunited church; the Anglicans typically have in mind an honorary non-jurisdictional primacy such as the phrase "primus inter pares" implies.

In one example of such acknowledgement, the International Anglican-Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, in its agreed statement Growing Together in Unity and Mission, "urge[s] Anglicans and Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion. The Moderator of the General Assembly in a Presbyterian church is similarly designated as a primus inter pares. As all elders are ordained —some for teaching and some for ruling- none sit in higher status, but all are equal behind the one and only head of the church Jesus Christ.

• Legends of the West: The Life and Legacy of Buffalo Bill Cody
• Tennis Ball Self Massage: Stop Your Muscle and Joint Pain
• 44 Gay Stories
• Stiller Tod: Thriller (German Edition)
• My Mothers Prayers
• The Sex Slave Murders: The True Story of Serial Killers Gerald and Charlene Gallego
• The Lion: Revised