Let judges keep watch on judges: Govt to SC

This draws from the institutional framework for judicial accountability existing in countries like USA and Canada.

Called the National Judicial Council—to be set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—its details are awaiting comments from Chief Justice R C Lahoti.

Early this month, Law Minister H R Bharadwaj said the CJI’s reaction on the proposal was ‘‘good’’ though he was yet to forward his comments.

The NJC is intended to form a part of a wider Judicial Accountability Bill. Officials say that once the CJI clears the proposal, the Law Ministry will decide whether the 1968 Judges (Inquiry) Act will be repealed and then send the proposal for clearance to the Union Cabinet.

According to the draft proposal:

• CJI will be chairman of the council which will include four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and four Chief Justices (in order of seniority) as well as two other ‘‘seniormost’’ High Court judges.

• NJC will examine complaints against judges, either itself or through an agency ‘‘under its supervision.’’

• NJC will get three months to complete its inquiry following which it can make any of the following recommendations: take away judicial work from the judge facing inquiry for a definite period or until a further inquiry is completed; transfer the judge to another High Court; ask for his/her resignation or recommend impeachment.

• Should the council get a complaint against one of its own members, that judge shall be excluded from the proceedings.

• Anyone who files a ‘‘mala fide’’ complaint can be punished by the Council with imprisonment for 1-3 years and a fine of up to Rs 40,000.

There is a reason for this. In the course of discussions, the Supreme Court told the Government that on scrutiny, several complaints against judges were found to be ‘‘baseless’’ and that whenever there was some substance, appropriate steps were taken as per the ‘‘in-house’’ procedure of the peer group.

The existing ‘‘in-house’’ procedures are contained in guidelines for judges listed in ‘‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’’ as well as in two Resolutions adopted by the Supreme Court during meetings held in 1997 and 1999. The Law Ministry had told the CJI that whenever allegations involving corruption by judges have come to their notice, the Government has been hamstrung by the fact that it did not have any Constitutional competence to look into the allegations. At best, copies were sent to the CJI for action he deemed fit.