ACCEPTING THE revised advice made by the Supreme Court Collegium, the federal government on Friday prolonged the tenure of Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala, further choose of the Bombay High Court, by one other yr. The extension comes only a day earlier than her preliminary two-year tenure was set to finish.
“In exercise of power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Smt Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala, to be an additional judge of the Bombay High Court for a period of one year with effect from 13 February 2021,” the warrant of appointment said.
After two of her latest verdicts got here beneath a detailed scrutiny for the controversial interpretation of sexual assault beneath the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Supreme Court Collegium had withdrawn its January 20 advice to nominate Justice Ganediwala as a everlasting choose of the excessive court docket.
If the extension was not granted, she would have needed to return to the district judiciary from the place she was elevated in February 2019. The Indian Express had reported that the Collegium’s determination to withdraw its advice on making Justice Ganediwala a everlasting choose got here after the Collegium obtained two robust notes of dissent from senior Supreme Court judges who’re consulted for appointments to the Bombay High Court — Justices D Y Chandrachud and A M Khanwilkar.
On January 19, Justice Ganediwala acquitted a person of sexual assault on the grounds that urgent the breasts of a kid over her garments with out direct “skin to skin” bodily contact doesn’t represent “sexual assault” beneath the POCSO Act.
Saying that Section 8 of POCSO gives for stringent punishment of 5 years’ of rigorous imprisonment, she noticed that “stricter proof and serious allegations are required”. So the person was convicted “under minor offence u/s 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI”. On January 27, the Supreme Court stayed this order.
Additional judges to excessive courts are appointed both from the Bar straight or state judiciary beneath Article 224 (1) of the Constitution for a interval not exceeding two years. The age of retirement is similar as that of everlasting judges – 62 years. Additional choose posts are constitutionally mandated to be non permanent posts to deal with the “increased burden of the court”. However, these posts are more and more used as probationary durations for judges earlier than they’re promoted as everlasting judges.
