Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The attention ordinary citizens pay to judicial credibility points to the faith they place in the higher courts in the country. And India8217;s higher judiciary, in turn, has by and large repaid that faith in abundant measure by conducting itself in conformity with the highest standards of morality and general conduct. But every now and then there are developments that serve as valuable reminders of the principles and procedures at stake.
The ripples caused by the transfer of Gujarat high court judge, B.J. Shethna, to the Sikkim High Court can be counted as another. Eminent jurist, Fali S. Nariman, has in a letter to this newspaper made the extremely valid observation that such a transfer 8212; if the idea is indeed to discipline an errant judge 8212; is not fair to the litigating public of Sikkim. After all, it stands to reason that a judge deemed unfit to function in the Gujarat High Court must necessarily be deemed unfit for the Sikkim High Court. In fact, bar councils of
various states have explicitly objected to allegedly tainted judges being asked to preside over local benches. There is also the perception that the non-consensual transfer of judges could undermine judicial independence.
Which brings us back to the old quandary: how to obtain judicial accountability? Last November the Union cabinet cleared the proposal of a National Judicial Council NJC and one that is entirely self-regulated. The NJC, as envisioned at present, cannot remove a judge it considers guilty, but it can issue advisories, warnings, pass a censoring comment or bar judges from attending courts for a short spell. Similar avenues to correct the functioning of the lower judiciary are at present open to the chief justices of various high courts. Unfortunately, however, they have inevitably failed to exercise this power. This is an issue that demands reform and it is fortunate that the newly appointed chief justice of India has said that he has got an open mind about improving the system.
