It is a well-settled principle of law that the presence of a conflict of interest — actual or potential — is sufficient to disqualify judges from participating in legal proceedings.

[gview file="http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/TOI_Petitioners_didnt_have_say_on_kapadia_presence.pdf" height="800px"] [gview file="http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/TOI_judges_skirt_global_norms_on_conflict_of_interest.pdf" height="800px"]

Chief Justice of India Sabyasachi Mukharji’s advice to Justice Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as investigations continued is worthy of emulation.

THE Supreme Court’s collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior judges, which recommends appointees to the Supreme Court, exercises a crucial responsibility.

Little did Subash Chandra Agrawal know that his RTI petition would create a first in history. His request two years ago, seeking information on whether judges were filing details of their assets under their 1997 inhouse resolution to do so, has brought about such a