Joginder Singh Toor

THE news that ‘Lawyers clerk delivers money at Judges House’ shocks every one. Every body who has been nursing a false or true hope the judiciary as the last resort and the savior of the rule-of-law is shaken to the spine.
The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had only this year on April 20, 2008 said at Delhi in the conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers that corruption in judiciary exists and has now started peeping out. It should be curtailed. Mr. Vijender Kumar Jain the then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied the next day while inaugurating the conclave of judicial officers at Panchkula not only the existence of corruption but also the statement of Dr. Manmohan Singh having even said so, which statement was made publicly and carried over by the press all over India.
The Chief Justice of India K.G.Bala Krishnan in a letter to the Madras High Court reminded the judges of the need to follow the universally accepted norms, guidelines and conventions on the conduct of Judges and urged them to circulate the copy of the circular, the resolution of the Supreme Court, regarding values of life to be observed by the Judges presently working as well as those who assume charge here after. The resolution states that Judges, either in their official or personal capacity, should not behave or conduct themselves in a manner that might erode people’s faith in judiciary, should not have close association with individual members of the Bar, should practice a decree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office, should not accept gifts or hospitality except from immediate members of his family.
As against it, as alleged, a clerk of a lawyer reaches with a packet at the residence of a Judge of the High Court, delivers it to somebody at the door for delivery to the Judge. The packet is found to contain Rs.15 lakh. The clerk is detained by the police on the asking of the Judge. The lawyer is contacted who feigns innocence and puts up an excuse that the money was meant to be delivered to some other person with similar name. The clerk mistook it and wrongly landed at the Judges house.
The story put forward did not work as other person Nirmal Singh whom the money was supposed to be delivered did not own the story. The counsel retracted and came up with another story during police investigation that one Ravinder Singh a Delhi based hotelier handed him over Rs.15 lakh to be delivered to another Judge of the similar name. On his way back from Delhi he received a call from Ravinder Singh that money should reach before 8.30 P.M. It being impossible for him to reach Chandigarh before 8.30 P.M. he asked his wife to send from the house Rs.15 lakh to other Judge but because of lack of communication it reached the other Judges house.
The case is registered; the police interrogate for 6 days and examine accounts and documents. Lawyer retracts 4 times. Ravinder Singh slips away, and has not been found till today. He is said to have links with politicians, Judges and beaurocrates. The Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court sends a report to the Chief Justice of India who hands over the case to the C.B.I. and appoints a three member in-house committee consisting of Judges from three different High Courts.
The issue of judicial accountability has since long been rife. The Judges claim that they are not accountable to any person except the one who is superior in rank and status to them which is none except the President of India who is the appointing authority and who cannot work of his own but on the help and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers being not superior to the Judges again creates a constitutional issue.
Under the scheme of the Constitution to keep checks and balances, the separation of powers of all the three wings of the State, puts them independent of each other and subordinate to none except the sovereign the citizen who is, as the conditions dictate, is unable to exercise his powers even the right to vote in correct direction.
The Judges Enquiry Act provides for an impeachment of a Judge to be initiated on the petition signed by at least 100 M.P. of the Lok Sabha or 50 of the Rajya Sabha an impractical position. As seen in Ramaswamy’s case the impeachment of the Judge is next to impossible.
The alternatives being traced in a Judicial Commission now changed to Judicial Council have their own difficulties, practical and theoretical. Even the amended contempt of Courts Act does not give an absolute right of truth of the statement as a defence. It is for the court to decide if in the public interest, truth of the statement is to be allowed as defence. Judges Inquiry Bill, 2006 contains a provision. If the complaint is found to be frivolous or made in bad faith or with intent to harass the Judge he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend unto one year and also to fine. It, apparently, is meant to prevent frivolous complaints but it can lead to totally stop the people to make any complaint against a Judge, except at the alter of his personal liberty which would be dependent on the discretion of the Judge in the matter of truth as defence and other related matters such as to establish good faith and absence of intention to harass the Judge. It may lead to the complainant ending up in jail, may be because of his unequal position to obtain documents and evidence against one who holds high office “the provisions of S.33 directing that the documents and records of proceedings relating to complaint shall not be disclosed to any person except as directed by the council. All other enquiries against public servants, however high in position, are open but the one, against Judges is kept secret. Dismissal of an enquiry for want of proof, can be for many reasons, that may be beyond the control of the complainant should not land him in jail. No law, particularly of administrative nature contemplates this.
The problem is not of one or two Judges but of its good percentage, which one after the other retiring Supreme Court Judge admitted to exist and showed helplessness to have it curtailed much less eradicated. Rather it has reached the stage of delivering money openly at Judges house not even in concealed position or in a packet rather according to police sources ‘in polythene bag’ as one carries mangoes purchased from the market. The situation is serious and alarming. The problem from the base of it is to be seen and taken care of. It requires help of the honest section of the judiciary, which is not forthcoming except by advice.
The vice of corruption seems to stay, till when the judiciary itself decides to offer itself to public scrutiny.
[Joginder Singh Toor is senior advocate and public affairs commentator jogindersingh_toor@yahoo.com]

BACK