|
| |
What are the best practices and conventions elsewhere?
We should at least have Public Confirmation hearings like in the US. In the Senate Judicial Committee, you have hearings where any public citizen can give evidence about the background of a judge that has bearing on their appointment. This is being fiercely resisted here.
There is still no independent body to process complaints and action against judges
|
Do any counter arguments hold?
None that I can see. The judges say all this will compromise their independence. Unfortunately, they are equating the independence of the judiciary with independence from accountability. Independence of the judiciary was meant to be independence from the political establishment, not from all accountability.
Are there other ways in which judicial corruption manifests itself?There are so many. There is Justice Kapadia who decided on the Niyamgiri mining lease case in Orissa. He said Vedanta can’t be given the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the Norwegian government; but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease because it is a publicly listed company. Justice Kapadia said it’s publicly listed because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in favour of Sterlite! There is a law against judges hearing cases where there is a conflict of interest, but they just bypass it and you can’t complain because that would be contempt.
WRITER’S EMAIL
shoma@tehelka.com
|
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 35, Dated September 05, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Burn After Reading
BRIJESH PANDEY and SANJAY DUBEY track the Supreme Court’s lack of urgency in investigating charges of judicial corruption
WHEN SPECIAL CBI judge Rama Jain received an anonymous letter in January 2008, telling her that the provident funds of Class 3 and Class 4 employees of the Ghaziabad court were being siphoned off, she had no idea that she had stumbled onto the biggest judicial scam in the history of independent India.
THE STORY OF A QUIET BURIAL?
Special CBI judge Rama Jain uncovers Rs 7 crore Provident Fund scam during vigilance inquiry
Accused Ashutosh Asthana revealed that he was paying off 36 judges including a sitting Supreme Court judge and 11 High Court judges
Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate, permits interrogation of all involved judges
Several status reports given by the CBI to the apex court
Reports kept secret. Action taken on basis of reports unknown
|
As she was the designated vigilance officer at the Ghaziabad court, she first conducted an inquiry on her own, which uncovered the involvement of at least three judges and the Central Nazir in the embezzlement of funds. She reported the matter to the Allahabad High Court, which, in turn, ordered a vigilance inquiry. Holding that the report, prima facie, had merit, the court directed her to file an FIR.
Central Nazir Ashutosh Asthana was arrested on the basis of the FIR on April 10, 2008. His interrogation revealed that Asthana was not a solo player. He claimed that he was first introduced to the scam by a district judge himself. What followed was so shocking that even the Ghaziabad police was on the backfoot. Asthana confessed that from the Rs 7 crore embezzled, he had given cash and gifts such as airconditioners, refrigerators, expensive clothes, jewellery and furniture to as many as 36 judges, including about 10 High Court judges and one Supreme Court judge. In a sworn statement before a magistrate, Asthana revealed that this fraud had run from 2001 to 2007 with the active connivance of district judges. Every month, Asthana even paid bribes to various judges, from Rs 25,000 to a whopping Rs 1.5 lakh.
When these excerpts from Asthana’s confession became public, the public image of the judiciary touched a new low. In perhaps the biggest moment of crisis for the Indian judiciary, Asthana, the main accused, has in turn named judges from the Ghaziabad District Court to the Allahabad High Court, right up to the Supreme Court. This was not all.
These revelations stunned the Ghaziabad police. Clearly out of their depth and (justifiably) wary of taking on the powerful judiciary, they requested the Ghaziabad court to hand over the probe to the CBI. In September 2008, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the CBI, but with a rider: Investigate, but give us a sealed report. The PF scam, as it had come to be known, gave the judiciary a wonderful opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of the people but the case remained shrouded in secrecy. Cynics then said that the whole matter would be given a quiet burial. Eighteen months after the scam became public and four CBI status reports later, the cynics appear to have had the last laugh.
This delay and secrecy in such a highprofile scam raises various uncomfortable questions for the Indian Judiciary. Legal luminaries believe that this is symptomatic of a larger malaise which ails the judiciary. Says jurist Ram Jethmalani, “The reputation of a judge is more important than the actual fact of his honesty. In fact, if a judge has a bad reputation, even if it is undeserved, he should not be appointed because then nobody will have confidence in his judgements,” adding, “When the judiciary expedites cases concerning the executive branch or even most prominent cases, why is such urgency not displayed here, when the matter is extremely serious. Why this delay?”
A VALID QUESTION. Asthana named 36 judges (a list of which is with TEHELKA). Other than the fact that a few have retired, virtually nothing is known about the fate of the judges of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court judge. Whether or not the apex court is planning to initiate or has initiated, criminal charges against any of the judges — sitting or retired — are questions that only the Supreme Court can answer.
For six years, funds worth Rs 7 crore were embezzled and judges were allegedly bribed
|
And the apex court should answer, argues former Union law minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan. “I don’t appreciate this sealed-cover business except in very rare cases when making something public might be detrimental to the public interest — mainly if there is an army secret. Whether it is the judiciary or the executive, all officers are appointed on the behalf of the people. It is on the people’s behalf that the judiciary exercises its powers. How can you keep investigations in the PF scam secret? The people have every right to know what is going on.”
VN Khare, former Chief Justice of India, concurs. “These kind of things should not be allowed to linger. This shakes the confidence of the people in the judiciary. If there is an allegation or misconduct, it must be inquired into immediately and strict action should be taken against the erring judges. Why should the reputation of most judges suffer for no fault of theirs?”
The biggest question which arises from this scam is the lack of will on the part of the judiciary to rein in errant judges. Let alone the judges named by Asthana, what about the fate of the three Ghaziabad District Judges named by vigilance officer of the district court Special CBI Judge Rama Jain herself? Legal luminaries say this hesitancy on the part of judges to act against fellow judges involved in wrongdoing clearly illustrates the prevailing mindset of the judiciary.
When the judiciary expedites cases concerning the executive branch or even most prominent cases, why is such urgency not being displayed in this matter?
RAM JETHMALANI, Jurist
|
“I know of a retired Chief Justice of India who is one of the most honest judges I have ever seen. It’s difficult to imagine a more honest person. However, when a responsible minister made complaints to him against a corrupt High Court Judge, he did not grant permission for an investigation because he felt that as the head of the judicial family, it was his job to protect judges, be they corrupt or not,” says Shanti Bhushan. Ram Jethmalani chips in sarcastically, “This is the reason why judges call each other ‘brother judge.’”
IT IS not only cases like the PF scam which taints the image of the judiciary, but also the extreme reluctance on the part of the judiciary to be open and transparent. Reams and reams of paper have gone towards pious exhortations by the judiciary asking the government to refrain from corruption and work in an efficient manner. But sadly, no judge has held forth at length on the need for the judiciary to refrain from corruption. Even attempts to exercise the Right to Information with respect to the office of the CJI came a cropper as the CJI’s office was always declared out of bounds. It took a historic verdict by the Delhi High Court to declare that the office of the CJI was not immune from accountability and outside the purview of the RTI Act. Senior lawyers and retired chief justices feel that if the judiciary is not transparent or accountable, it only means that they are trying to hide something. Justice Khare feels, “Judges are more accountable than other persons because they hold a very high post. The very existence of the judiciary is based on the faith of the common man in it. If that faith is not there, how can the judiciary function?”
What incenses them is the behaviour of the government with regard to the Judges’ Assets Declaration Bill which the government tried to introduce in 2009. The opposition erupted in protest and forced the government to defer the bill. Jethmalani terms the government’s approach to this bill as a “conspiracy of corruption”. “The government is scared to take on the judiciary. It’s clear that the executive wants to cosy up to the judiciary.” Agrees retired CJI V N Khare, “Why should there be any hesitancy to declare assets at all on the part of judiciary? The whole episode is beyond me.” In a recent development, the Supreme Court has reiterated before the Delhi High Court that the CJI’s office is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
No judge holds forth at length on the need for the judiciary to refrain from corruption
|
Another assault on the public image of the judiciary is the Dinakaran episode. Currently, judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Collegium, a group of judges chaired by the Chief Justice of India. When Chief Justice Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court was elevated to the Supreme Court, the state Bar and legal luminaries rose up in protest because the Collegium appeared to have dismissed, or, at least, not have considered the serious allegations of corruption against him. According to Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee, “The Dinakaran episode shows that the Collegium is not working satisfactorily. You must have a national commission for judges which should be made up of judges, eminent jurists and senior government officials. This council should have the power to get independent information and evaluate it.” Shanti Bhushan feels that as judges are extremely busy with hearing cases, there should be a full-time commission whose sole function is to pick judges for the High Court and the Supreme Court and feels that the commission should also have its own bureau of investigation. They should not be dependent on either the local police, who might be afraid to investigate judges, or on an overburdened CBI.
Corruption charges are swept under the carpet by the judiciary. But this has given a shield of total immunity to the judges, who think they can get away with anything
SHANTI BHUSHAN, Former law minister
|
But all this is very hard to achieve. Jurists feel that the judges of the higher courts have converted themselves into a union of sorts and are trying to protect each other. “Their approach is to sweep every allegation under the carpet. Don’t allow the public to know about it. Let the public believe that our judiciary is very honest. But this has been counterproductive. It has given a shield of total immunity to the judges and they think they can get away with anything. This has led to an increase in corruption in the judiciary,” states Shanti Bhushan. Time and again, opportunities have arisen for the judiciary to reinvent itself in a new avatar. And time after time, it has failed. Caesar’s wife, they say, should be above suspicion. Whatever the cost it might take to ensure it.
WRITERS’ EMAIL
brijesh@tehelka.com
sanjay@tehelka.com
|
|
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 41, Dated October 17, 2009
|
‘Half of last 16 chief justices have been corrupt’
By churumuri
‘ alt=”http://churumuri.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/prashant-and-shantibhushan.png?w=200&h=300″ border=0 v:shapes=”_x0000_i1036″>
Judicial corruption is a bull few in India are willing to attach their names to. There are whispers of this or that sitting judge making piles or cash; of sons, daughters and other near and dear ones acting as “brokers” for cases, deals, etc, but none of those allegations see the light of day.
Not because the media is a willing accomplice but because of the sword of “contempt of court” hanging over us.
For long, truth was not, repeat not, a defence in the case of contempt. Although that is now no longer the case, judicial corruption still isn’t headline news like corruption in other spheres of Indian life. The case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran is one of the rare exceptions and that too only in sections of the media.
In September 2009, the Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in an interview to Shoma Chaudhury of Tehelkamagazine, said “half of the last 16 chief justices were corrupt”. The comment invited the apex court’s contempt. Now, Bhushan’s father, the noted jurist Shanti Bhushan has joined issue.
In his application before the Supreme Court praying for his impleadment as respondent No.3 in the case of the Amicus Curiae vs Prashant Bhushan, Bhushan senior repeats his son’s charge that eight out of the last 16 CJs were corrupt, even going so far as to deliver the names of the corrupt in a sealed cover.
“In the applicant’s opinion, eight [of the last 16 chief justices] were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt.”
Below is the full text of Shanti Bhushan’s application, published in the public interest.
***
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India &
His companion justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the Petitioners above named.
Most respectfully showeth:
1. That the applicant is filing the present application for his impleadment as Respondent No. 3 in the aforementioned contempt petition as the applicant is making a categorical statement in the present application that eight of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt and also providing the names of those eight definitely corrupt Chief Justices in a sealed cover as an annexure along with the present application.
2. The applicant is a practicing advocate who was enrolled on 8 July 1948. He has appeared in each and every High Court in the country. He is well acquainted with the manner in which the Indian judiciary has been functioning and how its character has been changing over the years.
3. That the applicant has been a part of the campaign for judicial accountability since its inception in the year 1990.
4. That there was a time when it was almost impossible even to think that a judge of a High court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt. Things have changed drastically during the last 2 or 3 decades during which corruption has been growing in the Indian judiciary. So much so that even a sitting Chief Justice of India had to openly admit that 20% of the judges could be corrupt. Very recently in March 2010 a sitting Chief Justice of a high court openly made a statement. The statement of the sitting chief justice was published by the Times of India in its issue of 6th march 2010 with the headlines, “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat chief justice”. A copy of the news paper report is being annexed hereto as Annexure A.
5. That the applicant believes that the reported statement may not be correctly reflecting the perception of the Gujarat Chief Justice, since he should be knowing as the applicant does that there are and have always been plenty of totally honest judges, but they are also becoming the victim of this public perception since no institution of governance in the country is taking any effective steps about dealing with corruption in the judiciary.
6. That India became a republic in 1950, when the people became sovereign. They got the right to constitute their institutions, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, to serve them, who would be accountable to them.
7. That before 1950, corruption was almost non existent in the High Courts. The federal court had in 1949 got Justice Shiv Prasad Sinha removed from the Allahabad High Court, merely on the finding that he had passed 2 judicial orders on extra judicial considerations.
8. That it however appears that thereafter the judiciary has adopted the policy of sweeping all allegations of judicial corruption under the carpet in the belief that such allegations might tarnish the image of the judiciary. It does not realize that this policy has played a big role in increasing judicial corruption.
9. That the Constitution prescribed removal by impeachment as the only way of removing judges who commit misconduct since it was believed at the time of the framing of the Constitution that misconduct by judges of the higher judiciary would be very rare. However those expectations have been belied as is apparent from the surfacing of a series of judicial scandals in the recent past. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami and subsequent attempts to impeach other judges have shown that this is an impractical and difficult process to deal with corrupt judges. The practical effect of this has been to instill a feeling of impunity among judges who feel that they cannot be touched even if they misconduct.
10. That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in theVeeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.
11. That the result of this direction has been that a total immunity has been given to corrupt judges against their prosecution. No wonder that judicial corruption has increased by leaps and bounds.
12. That an honest judiciary enjoying public confidence is an imperative for the functioning of a democracy, and it is the duty of every right thinking person to strive to achieve this end.
13. That unless the level of corruption in the judiciary is exposed and brought in the public domain, the institutions of governance cannot be activated to take effective measures to eliminate this evil.
14. That it is the common perception that whenever such efforts are made by anyone, the judiciary tries to target him by the use of the power of contempt. It is the reputation of the judge which is his shield against any malicious and false allegations against him. He doesn’t need the power of contempt to protect his reputation and credibility.
15. That the applicant strongly believes that a responsible citizen should be prepared to undergo any amount of suffering in the pursuit of the noble cause of fighting for a clean judiciary.
16. That there are two statements of Respondent no. 1 (Prashant Bhushan) published in Tehelka by Respondent no. 2 which are alleged to constitute contempt of court. In the 1st statement, Respondent no. 1 has expressed that in his view, out of the last 16 or 17 chief justices of India, half have been corrupt.
17. The applicant states that in his view too this statement is absolutely correct. At the time of the publication of this report in Tehelka, the last 16 Chief Justices of India were the following: 1. Justice Ranganath Mishra,
2. Justice K.N. Singh,
3. Justice M.H. Kania,
4. Justice L.M. Sharma,
5. Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah,
6. Justice A.M. Ahmadi,
7. Justice J.S. Verma,
8. Justice M.M. Punchhi,
9. Justice A.S. Anand,
10. Justice S.P. Bharucha,
11. Justice B.N. Kripal,
12. Justice G.B. Patnaik,
13. Justice Rajendra Babu,
14. Justice R. C. Lahoti,
15. Justice V.N. Khare,
16. Justice Y.K SabharwalOut of these, in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed here to as Annexure B.
18. That in fact two former chief justices of India had personally told the applicant while they were in office that their immediate predecessor and immediate successor were corrupt judges. The names of these four Chief Justices of India are included in the list of the 8 corrupt Chief Justices of India.
19. That since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
