Judges above all

The judges had vehemently denied the charges. Following the publication of their names in this newspaper and a demand made by the Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana for withdrawal of work from the 8216;tainted8217; judges, the chief justice himself held a preliminary inquiry with the help of investigating officers. Although he is yet to publicly state the reasons for the withdrawal of work from three of his colleagues, it is obvious that he had either found prima facie evidence against them or had taken the step to maintain the dignity of the judiciary until the truth is established.

Ironically, the only other instance of its kind is that concerning Chief Justice V. Ramaswamy, whose work was withdrawn before the launch of impeachment proceedings. It is well-known that the judiciary was divided on the action taken against him and even the impeachment proceedings had come to naught, with MPs divided on the issue along party lines.

The founding fathers of the nation had obviously not foreseen professional misconduct, nepotism or corruption reaching serious proportions and had, therefore, provided mainly for the security of tenure and other safeguards for judges. At the same time, the process of impeachment was kept difficult and time consuming. Although there is no constitutional provision for the withdrawal of work from judges, in a way it is more damaging to a judge than impeachment as it tends to establish guilt without due process of inquiry.

In fact, there is no established procedure to deal with the situation after allegations are levelled against any judge and before impeachment proceedings are launched. In Justice Ramaswamy8217;s case, Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee had asked him to proceed on leave till the matter was investigated. The three-member committee set up to inquire into the allegations was unable to establish prima facie guilt and recommended that Justice Ramaswamy resume judicial work. In the current case, Chief Justice Sahariya has simply withdrawn judicial work from the three and they have not been asked to go on leave.

The statement by S.P. Bharucha, when he was chief justice of India, that there existed the possibility of 20 per cent of judicial officers being corrupt, has jolted law-abiding citizens and the judicial fraternity alike. Some of the Bar Councils and other organisations have demanded the constitution of a high-powered committee of former chief justices and eminent lawyers to suggest remedial measures. However, the judiciary has been reluctant to address the problem so far.

While there are provisions 8212; though some of them are vague 8212; in dealing with the subordinate judiciary, the contempt law and the tedious process of impeachment has come in the way of a radical clean up of the system.

The growing number of complaints and allegations may adversely affect the public8217;s faith in the sacred institution of the judiciary 8212; something that can be countenanced only at our peril. Justice Bharucha8217;s remarks should, therefore, be taken in the right spirit. A way has also to be found to deal with comparatively minor complaints against judges which do not call for impeachment.

It is high time for the judiciary itself to develop a mechanism, either through a national judicial commission or by appointing an ombudsman to inquire into the complaints. Brushing the issue under the carpet will not do. We must do all we can to maintain the dignity of this vital pillar of democracy.