In RTI146;s purview

It is difficult not to take a position in the ongoing debate on the issue of bringing judges under the purview of the Right...

It is difficult not to take a position in the ongoing debate on the issue of bringing judges under the purview of the Right to Information Act. In my view, the report by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, reaffirming the applicability of the RTI Act on all activities of administration and persons judges in the judiciary 8212; except judicial decision-making 8212; is a welcome development. It would help restore the country8217;s faith in the judiciary8217;s delivery of fair justice, which could have been severely undermined had the judges been able to conceal their wealth, and its sources, from public scrutiny, and evade questions about their public conduct.

The chief justice8217;s contention that judges hold constitutional offices and are thus not covered under the RTI Act is easily challenged. Members of Parliament are constitutional functionaries too, yet they are required by law to furnish all details of their assets and liabilities at the time of their electoral nomination. The committee is right in its observation that even the prime minister, speaker of Lok Sabha and president of India as constitutional authorities are covered under the RTI Act and there is no question of any exemption for any other office. Thus, keeping judges out of the RTI8217;s purview is tantamount to keeping them out of the definition of public service, which is unthinkable in a democratic system.

Technicalities apart, the judiciary clearly owes a fair level of transparency around its conduct. There has been no dearth of pointers to corruption in the judiciary. In 2002, the then chief justice remarked that 20 per cent of the higher judiciary might be corrupt. Several cases in recent years have had senior judges accused of impropriety, sometimes even benefiting from the largesse of state governments. The lower judiciary is in a league of its own and has long suffered charges of corruption. It is vital for the judiciary to acknowledge its accountability. Reluctance to open its conduct to public scrutiny will cast the judiciary in poor light.

Commission, omission

One need not look beyond the performance of various judicial commissions of inquiry to find fault with the Indian judiciary. A judicial commission is set up with a pre-defined term of existence to expedite a probe into a case or an incident of vital national importance, when it is observed that such a probe will get delayed in the normal courts of justice. However, very few commissions have handled their probes competently and submitted their reports before the end of their terms. A majority of them have overrun their terms by several years and sometimes decades, repeatedly requesting and getting extensions.

The Liberhan Commission, constituted to probe the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the subsequent riots in Ayodhya, was set up with a term of three months. Fifteen years and 44 term extensions later, nobody can guess when its report will be submitted. The Nanavati-Shah commission was set up in March 2002 to probe the Godhra train carnage in Gujarat. Commission member Justice Shah passed away in March this year, a development which might further delay the report. The Srikrishna Commission, set up in January 1993, was given time till March that year to probe into the Bombay riots, but the final report came out in 1998.

Many of these commissions have ensured that justice is their first casualty. A delay over years means that their reports are irrelevant when they are submitted. In the interim period, the accused walk free, witnesses pass away, turn hostile or flee the country and crucial evidence is lost.

In my view, the government needs to be stern about granting any extension to a judicial commission. The duration of a commission should be well deliberated upon at the time of its constitution, and once finalised, every possible step should be taken to ensure that it is adhered to. A judicial commission should fulfill its raison d8217;etre, even if it calls for extra or special powers to be vested in it and larger budgets to be granted.

The writer is a Congress MP in Rajya Sabha