BJP flays Delhi Law Minister's move to call judges' meeting

Delhi unit of BJP today attacked the city government over its Law Minister Somnath Bharti's attempt to convene a meeting of all Judges of courts here, dubbing it as "unconstitutional and amounting to interference of the executive in the judicial domain".
Delhi BJP spokesperson Aman Sinha, a Supreme Court Advocate, stated that according to Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises exclusive administrative jurisdiction over judges in the state, which in this case is Delhi High Court.
Article 50 of the Constitution of India says "the state shall take steps to separate the Judiciary and executive..."
"The constitutional obligation of the state government is being clearly violated by the Law Minister of the state himself. BJP believes that an impartial and independent judiciary is imperative for our democracy and it has to be safeguarded at all costs," said Sinha.

"It was unthinkable for a minister or anyone representing the executive to summon a meeting of judges", Sinha said adding "never before in the history of independent India has a Minister directly tried to convene a meeting of all Judges of the state and that too in the state secretariat."
The Supreme Court has consistently held that separation of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
According to reports, when Law Secretary A S Yadav (Judicial officer himself) rightly explained the aforesaid legal position to the Law Minister, Bharti had rebuked the Law Secretary and accused him of being loyal to the old regime, Sinha said in a press statement.

"Reportedly, this compelled Yadav to write a letter to the Chief Justice of Delhi apprising him of the unfortunate developments. Yadav is reported to have told the Delhi Chief Justice that it had become difficult for him to work with the present administrative atmosphere in Delhi, and thus would like to go back to his parent cadre. Such coercion of a judicial officer of the rank of Yadav would amount also to contempt," he said.