Code of conduct for judges now

This pre-empts Government8217;s recent decision to establish a National Judicial Commission to draft a code of ethics for judiciary.

Justice Anand supporting the code of conduct, which has been termed as restatement of values of judicial life RVJL, told the chief justices that quot;in a democracy where the sovereignty vests in the people, every public office holder must be accountable to the peoplequot;.

The chief justices would also give their response within eight weeks to a report submitted by a committee set up by the CJI pertaining to the quot;in-house procedurequot; for taking suitable action against judges who do not follow the universally accepted values of judicial life including those indicated in the RVJL.

Justice Anand said quot;the need for an in-house procedure8217; for the higher judiciary cannot be doubted at the present juncture. Judicial accountability is, indeed, a facet of the independence of the judiciary.quot; The code of conduct bars an advocate sibling of a judge from using the official residence for his professional work.

quot;A judge shall not enter into a public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or likely to arise for judicial determination,quot; states the code of conduct, which also bars a judge from giving interview to the media.

Justice Anand said he would apprise the Government and indicate the response of the high courts to the in-house procedure8217; after receiving the response from the chief justices. He added that the existing situation in some high courts emphasises the need for serious consideration on this issue.

The CJI stressed on the urgent need to deal with the huge pendency of cases in the courts saying quot;as we enter the 21st century, the first thing we, in the judiciary, shall have to start is to reduce the huge pendency of the cases and check factors responsible for the backlogquot;.

However, he blamed the Centre and state governments for not acting on the recommendations for filling up of nearly 1,000 vacancies in the lower courts and about 154 vacancies in the high courts, which, he added, has worsened the problem of backlog and delay in disposal of cases.

Justice Anand impressed upon the chief justices to earnestly take up the issue of filling up the vacancies in the lower courts with the state governments and public service commissions.

The CJI said one of the causes for delay in the disposal of cases was judge made8217; and added quot;lack of punctuality, laxity, lack of control over the case files and court proceeding contributes in no small measures to delay in the disposal of the cases.quot;

Justice Anand said court time was sacrosanct and no judge or the members of bar have any right to waste the court time. quot;The judges must always respect the court time and remain punctual, no laxity is permissible in this behalf, he said and added quot;the delay in pronouncing judgments is yet another aspect on which we must address ourselves.quot;

He said delay in delivering the judgment causes anguish to the litigant and could become a cause of suspicion8217;. quot;The inordinate delay in delivery of judgments is inexcusable,quot; the CJI said.

Justice Anand said since the number of judges to tackle the backlog of cases was inadequate quot;Lok Adalat movement, as an alternative mode for resolving disputes between parties needs to be strengthened and used effectivelyquot;.

Giving details of 154 vacancies in various high courts, the CJI said the proposals for filling 41 of the vacancies were under consideration.