Although it is important to guard the independence of the judiciary, so as to enable it to better protect citizens’ rights, there seems to be a need for judicial transparency. The chief justice has called for the declaration of assets by judges. T.U. Mehta, a retired chief justice from Shimla, argued in a letter earlier this week ‘Benefit of judiciary’ that such disclosures should in fact enhance the reputation of the judiciary further. • My regards for your suggestion to the Indian judiciary “to balance the distortions” that creep into politics ‘Towards disclosure’. The Indian Constitution rightly safeguards judicial independence and invests vast judicial powers in the hands of Supreme Court and high court judges. This makes the judiciary our ultimate chance of balancing the distortions. However, the immunities relate to the discharge of judicial functions and not administrative ones. Every Indian citizen is entitled to know as to how judicial appointments are made, how the revenue meant for judicial administration is utilised, etc. The RTI Act doesn’t exempt the Supreme Court or the high courts from disclosing such administrative facts. If disclosures reveal any distortion, the judiciary should welcome such disclosures because these provide opportunities for correction and, thus, for enhancing the reputation of the judiciary itself. The integrity of the Indian judiciary has suffered in comparison to what it was a decade ago. If this is indeed so, your guarded suggestion does gather more weight. Unsubtle differences•The editorial ‘Spotthe difference’ underscores the fact that a democracy has an inbuilt mechanism to stop or check the violation of human rights that is absent under authoritarian rule. But neither the CPM nor your editorial refers to a major difference between Kashmir and Tibet — the illegal Chinese occupation of Aksai-Chin alone makes for 20 per cent of Kashmir. Therefore, by taking into account the area under Pakistani occupation, nearly half of the original territory of Jammu & Kashmir is illegally occupied by other countries. India, however, doesn’t occupy even one sq inch of Tibet. — Syed ShahabuddinNew DelhiSinning sons• In the backdrop of the latest controversy involving President Pratibha Patil’s kin — her son Rajendra Shekhawat’s alleged breach of protocol in flying to Miami from Mexico — one had thought, perhaps wrongly, that the president would be gracious enough to regret the son’s improper action ‘Rashtrapatil Bhavan’. That morally correct and wise act could have enhanced her reputation before the public.— M. RatanNew Delhi •One hopes that the present incumbent at Rashtrapati Bhavan takes note of your editorial comments. Pratibha Patil has already started using the office like most Indian ministers. The president took along not only her extended family but also a half dozen medicos and hangers on. This president’s credentials are, to say the least, certainly different from those of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam or S. Radhakrishnan. In fact, Pratibha Patil would have been better off as a politician. It is necessary for the citizens of India to limit the foreign tours of public figures, elected or not, since they only exploit taxpayers’ money to benefit their kin. The president could make it easier by keeping her family members out of her future official tours. — Kishore KarnadSunnyvale, US
