Saturday, Nov 22, 2014

Law panel head questions judicial Bill, advises a new one

It was also under-inclusive, the note adds, since the definition was very expansive. “Though it has a residuary clause ‘conduct which brings dishonour or disrepute to the judiciary’, this definition is so vague so as to be redundant,” AP Shah said. Source: Express It was also under-inclusive, the note adds, since the definition was very expansive. “Though it has a residuary clause ‘conduct which brings dishonour or disrepute to the judiciary’, this definition is so vague so as to be redundant,” AP Shah said. Source: Express
Written by Maneesh Chhibber | New Delhi | Posted: August 4, 2014 1:58 am

The Law Commission of India has come down heavily on the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, asking the government to come up with a new Bill, one that “ensures judicial accountability in an effective manner while not adversely affecting judicial inde-pendence at the same time”.

In a note sent to the Union Law Ministry, Law Commission Chairman Justice A P Shah covered all the important clauses of the Bill, which was passed by the Lok Sabha in March 2012, and raised issues of constitutionality of the proposed law.

In the note, Justice Shah termed the definition of misbehavior in clause 2(j) of the Bill as “over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time”. Elaborating, he said that the definition was over-inclusive because even a “minor infraction” would constitute misconduct, an act for which impeachment has been given as available remedy.

It was also under-inclusive, the note adds, since the definition was very expansive. “Though it has a residuary clause ‘conduct which brings dishonour or disrepute to the judiciary’, this definition is so vague so as to be redundant,” he said.

The former Delhi High Court chief justice also takes exception to the Bill aiming to lay down statutory judicial standards. “The statutory laying  down of judicial standards, thereby making the non-observance of such standards justiciable, opens a Pandora’s box of litigation. For example, Clause 3(f) provides that no judge shall ‘enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters’. This is a widely worded restriction and considerable litigation can be expected to ensue, including several cases of vendetta by losing litigants, on the connotation of ‘views expressed’, ‘political matters’, etc,” his note says.

The previous UPA Government had introduced the Bill which, among other things, provides that judges be required to declare their and their kin’s assets, lays down judicial standards, and establishes processes for removal of members of the higher judiciary.

It also proposed establishing a National Judicial Oversight Committee, a Complaints Scrutiny Panel and an investigation committee to go into complaints against judges of the Supreme Court and high courts.

The Law Commission Chairman is not enthused with this plan too, saying “very little discretion” is vested in the Oversight Committee. “Besides, the composition of both the Oversight Committee and the Scrutiny Panel is preponderantly judicial. It is unclear why two bodies are required, a set-up that has significant potential to delay the entire process of scrutiny and oversight. Besides provisions relating to tenure, re-appointment continued…

comments powered by Disqus
Featured ad: Discount Shopping