Justice denied to Tis Hazari Court judges indicted by HC for

The decision to transfer these two judicial officers to the record room was taken by the Delhi High Court, which has administrative control over Tis Hazari. High Court officials claim this assignment was given since the task was “delicate”. But members of the subordinate judiciary aren’t convinced. Several of them feel that what’s happened to Rohilla and Charan is an example of what they call the glaring gaps in the High Court’s ongoing drive to cleanse the lower courts of corruption.

Since 1993, at least 14 judicial officers, most of them functioning in Tis Hazari as Additional District Judges or Metropolitan Magistrates, have either been compulsorily retired or reverted to junior ranks by the Delhi High Court. Eight judicial officers were retired in two batches in 1993 and 1996. The most recent was the action against V K Malhotra and I C Tewari who were informed about six months ago that all judicial work was being withdrawn from them. In each case, the decision was first taken by a two-member screening committee appointed by the High Court and then ratified by the full court, at present comprising 27 judges. For a decision to be final, a majority of High Court judges have to give their nod.

Most of the indicted judges and magistrates were marked `C’ (the lowest-possible grading) in their Annual Confidential Report (ACR). In some cases, the charge of “incompetence” and “inefficiency” was added along with “doubtful integrity.”

For the majority of judicial officers compulsorily retired, the High Court has taken recourse to Clause 56 J of the Fundamental Rules which gives the Government “absolute authority” to retire an official if he has crossed 50 years of age or has completed 20 years in service. (The normal retirement age for a judge of the subordinate judiciary that is below the High Court is 58 years which may be extended to 60 years.)

Says Kamlesh Sabbarwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, who took voluntary retirement in 1993: “The whole system is based only on rumours.” She adds: “Even murderers are given an opportunity to defend themselves but this principle of natural justice is not being applied when it comes to senior judicial officers like us.”

In the case of some judicial officers like former civil judge Jaswant Singh, the axe fell close to the time of their eventual retirement. Singh was to retire in May 1996 and just three months before that he received the High Court’s order. He now demands, “What public interest was served by retiring me on the eve of my retirement? The result of the High Court’s action has been extremely traumatic and stagmatic for me.”

But indicted judicial officers don’t have many sympathisers although most legal experts agree that the system of punishment should be more transparent and that an indicted judicial officer should be served with a charge-sheet like any other Government servant. There is a virtual consensus that reverting a judicial officer to a lower rank or letting them practise doesn’t send the right signal. And it may even encourage them to challenge the action in the High Court which four dismissed or demoted judicial officers have already done.

According to former Law Minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, the High Court judges should try and collect “tangible evidence” against the errant officers and even try and catch them red-handed. “An independent agency should be appointed to hold an inquiry and book these officers. Otherwise, the purpose of the retirements and reversions being a deterrent is not being served.”

Says Jatan Singh, Secretary of the 7,000-strong Delhi Bar Association: “A man who is deemed to be corrupt and is not fit to be a judicial officer is also not fit to be an officer of the court. The Bar should be consulted by the High Court on charges against each and every judge. Unfortunately, we are also in the dark about the evidence against these men.”

Rajiv Khosla, former secretary of the Bar Council says that the entire process of cleansing began with him giving the High Court a list of 30 judicial officers whose had a dubious reputation in 1993.