OPEN FORUM

New Delhi, 4 November 2008

Corruption In Judiciary

NATIONAL COMMISSION A MUST

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The judiciary has suddenly attracted much attention not only for its various judgements against the government and its long list of pending cases but also because of corruption charges against some judges. Recently, none other than Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan made it clear that he would not hesitate to permit prosecution of corrupt judges if investigating agencies presented unimaginable evidence against them. Perhaps, an obvious reference to a recent case of impeachment against a Calcutta High Court judge and a CBI inquiry into a Provident Fund scam involving judges.

Lately, the powerful judiciary has witnessed instances of some black sheep in the system. Whether it was Punjab’s PPSC scam, Mysore’s sex sleaze case (2002), the DDA scam (2003) or misuse of the official position by a former CJI among others, names of various High Court judges have been figuring in the media from time to time. And, it cannot be denied that the public’s confidence on the judiciary has indeed been shaken by occurrence of such unfortunate incidents.

To address the problem of corruption, the time has come to test the efficacy of the existing mechanism for appointment of judges. It may be mentioned here that judicial service is not a service in the sense of employment. Indeed, the judges discharge their functions by exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. As such, there should be no compromise on honesty and integrity of the person holding such office.

The impeachment system is generally regarded as cumbersome and unsuited to the present general atmosphere. However, the CJI said there was scope for simplification of the procedure but added in the same breath that “if it is made very simple then the lives of judges will be rendered miserable as any aggrieved party will attempt to invoke impeachment system”. Recall, the only case for impeachment of a judge of the Supreme Court was in 1993 (Justice V. Ramaswamy case), but it failed miserably owing to the ruling party’s decision to abstain from voting.  

In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCRWC) had recommended the setting up of a National Judicial Commission and a peer committee, comprising three senior-most judges of the apex court, to examine complaints of deviant behaviour of all kinds and also of incapacity against judges of the Supreme and High Courts. This committee was supposed to hold a preliminary scrutiny to ascertain whether there was any substance in the complaint and if it called for investigation.

The detailed enquiry/investigation was recommended to be conducted by a permanent committee to be constituted by the President, similar in composition to the one prescribed under Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 which, on the contrary is an ad hoc committee. If this committee came to a conclusion, it would furnish a report to the CJI, who in turn would place the same before a committee of seven senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for a final decision on the punishment to be awarded on the errant judge.

But the UPA government did not accept the idea and instead adopted a statutory route by tabling the Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2006 which provided for the setting up of a National Judicial Council. The Bill, however, did not find adequate support from the judiciary for various reasons and is still awaiting passage in Parliament.

At such a time, there is need to maintain a somewhat unblemished record of the higher judiciary as it is still respected by most citizens, regardless of religion, caste, creed or place of birth. However, there are reports of alleged corruption in the lower judiciary and an intervention at this level is urgent to bring down the alleged corruption levels to the extent possible.     

Moreover, a problem that needs serious attention is the growing political influence in the judicial system, which again is more pronounced at the lower levels. There are instances where political influence has allegedly subverted justice in the true sense, with corrupt leaders having been successful in bypassing the law, thanks to the power they wield. It would be pertinent to add here that the ‘largely-corrupt’ police machinery in our system has more or less always aided and abetted political heavyweights and thwarted the law from taking its course.  

Meanwhile, the CJI has shown the way by constituting an in-house committee comprising three senior High Court judges to probe into the Chandigarh scam (in addition to the investigation being conducted by the CBI). The Chief Justice also deserves appreciation for framing a code of conduct for adoption by all subordinate judges across the country as well as by requiring all high court judges to submit details of their assets periodically. If such details are made public and put on the website of the apex court, it would silence critics and repose faith in the higher judiciary.

However, one has to agree with the views expressed by noted jurist and President of the All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties, O. P. Saxena that there are only a few cases of corruption in the higher judiciary. According to him “if we devise a mechanism like that of forming a National Judicial Commission, having in it judges, former judges, senior advocates and highly reputable social activists, the problem could be tackled effectively”. Many others have backed the formation of such a Commission to look into matters pertaining to appointments, transfers and punishments of judicial officers.

This apart, the Commission is expected to look at the large number of pending cases at all tiers of the judiciary and ensure that these are brought down to the extent possible. As per available statistics, there are 48,838 cases pending in the Supreme Court till end-August 2008 and the figure in High Courts would easily be double if not treble. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report ‘The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2008’ has rightly recommended that the government should take every measure to reduce pending cases in the apex as well as other courts. We all do know the saying: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. An impeccable judiciary should strive towards not allowing this to happen.

An important point that needs to be reiterated here is the fact that the judiciary needs to maintain its neutrality – free from any influence of the government. Though this is easily said, it doesn’t always happen. The constitution of the National Judicial Commission would also go a long way in ensuring the independence of the judiciary by taking action against those found to be hobnobbing with those close to the powers-that-be and the anti-socials. Time to hear the plea. ---INFA 

 (Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)