Joginder Singh Toor

A controversy which should not have at all arisen is not only becoming unending but getting day by day complicated also. Should Judges be open to public scrutiny? Why not:- is one voice. When every other public servant including the highest one is subject to the provisions of the Right To Information Act, the Supreme Court says “We cannot expose our Judges to public scrutiny or inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and independence.

The verdict of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court is under challenge before the Supreme Court in which it has been held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the purview of Right To Information Act and details of Judges assets should be released. There is no problem in having a better transparency and accountability in the system but it should come from within the system. The judgment was contrary to the stand taken by the Chief Justice of India.

The Registry of the Supreme Court filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, thereby the Supreme Court becoming the judge of its own cause and hearing appeal against the judgment which is against the views of the Chief Justice of India and some of his companion judges.

Justice V.R.Krishna Ayer formal Judge of the Supreme Court, quoting the great Felix Frankfurter that “Judges as persons or Courts as Institutions are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or Institutions. “Judges of India’s highest court” says Justice Krishna Ayer “consider themselves to be gifted with infallibility because of the finality of their judgments. Like other persons they too must suffer while they go wrong. If robes robe by corruption they must be answerable. Parliament is the ultimate inquest of the nation.”

The situation created by at least three factors has justified the voice of the people that Judges must be accountable and their working transparent. A Judge of the Karnataka High Court took the lead saying that they are not agreeable to the stand taken by the Chief Justice of India and that they are not bound by it. Secondly Justice K.Kanan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court while not showing disagreement with the C.J.I has for public good and of his own volition declared his assets by putting the same on his own web site. Thirdly the members of Rajya Sabha had earlier not allowed the Law Minister Mr.M.Veerapa Moily to introduce the Bill wherein disclosing of assets by the Judges was left to their discretion.

Forced by the circumstances, the Law Minister assured the nation that a new Bill will be soon introduced in the Parliament making it mandatory for the Judges to disclose their assets. The Judges of the Supreme Court of their own wisdom taking into account the trend of circumstances, have put on the website of the Supreme Court the assets declared by the Judges. The perusal of the same shows that one of the Judges of the Supreme Court have got shares in 57 Companies and his wife in 43 Companies. It may not be otherwise bad but it leads to a pro corporate trend in the judiciary which can lead to tilted interpretation. A Judge having a stake in the Company cannot hear the case relating to that Company. As a result two of the Judges of the Supreme Court, after the assets were disclosed, hearing the case of Reliance Brothers had to recuse themselves from the Bench because they were stakeholders.

J.L.Gupta, a former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who retired as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court in his recent article says that you should see the intellectual worth of the Judge and not his assets and conveniently forgetting the fate of V.R.Krishna Swammy impeachment proceedings failing in the Parliament, not on merits but for other considerations and knowing fully well that no other Judge has ever been removed because of the faulty provisions of the Judges Enquiry Act,1968 says that incredible elements “have invariably been weeded out.”.

It appears that an atmosphere of lobbying has been created to lobby for and against judges accountability and transparency which is an unwanted controversy. Rather it should have been offered by the Judges themselves to let any person know what they possess and how they administer. The administrative side of the judiciary should also be open to the public view and should not be taken away.

[Joginder Singh Toor is a senior advocate based in Chandigarh 91-9815133530. jogindersingh_toor@yahoo.com]

BACK