MTNL ‘gift’ to SC judges is judicial consumerism, says Justice Iyer

‘‘This is an instance of judicial consumerism,’’ says former Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer referring to t...

‘‘This is an instance of judicial consumerism,’’ says former Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer referring to the report in The Sunday Express (Hello, Your Lordship, September 1).

The report highlighted how MTNL gave free cellphones and a heavily discounted package to all 25 judges and the three registrars of the court and then went on to mention in its official notings that one reason for the offer was that it desired ‘‘better relations and goodwill with the Supreme Court.’’

While Communications Minister Pramod Mahajan says that ‘‘this is not a big thing and there’s nothing wrong in it,’’ a section of the legal community disagree.

Story continues below this ad

Says senior advocate P P Rao: ‘‘What is most objectionable is the use of ‘goodwill’ by MTNL people. They have undermined the institution of the judiciary and its credibility. This is not correct and it doesn’t help public interest at all. However, I am awaiting a clarification from the Supreme Court on the issue.’’

For senior advocate Hardev Singh, who is also convenor of the Committee of Judicial Accountability (COJA), this is an issue of propriety. ‘‘It’s just not proper. The judges should have declined it straightaway.’’

Another senior advocate and prominent COJA member Indira Jaising agrees: ‘‘It is simply not done to accept any concessions from potential litigants unless such concessions are routinely available to other citizens as well. Even the government can’t give perks to Supreme Court judges. They can just set the terms and conditions of employment and broad salary terms.’’

But echoing the views of many, senior advocate and legal commentator Rajiv Dhavan says: ‘‘This cannot be considered quid pro quo as cellphones are a very small thing. Though one would not like to see any concessions going to the judiciary except from the exchequer, the saving grace is that they have accepted this from a government company.’’

Story continues below this ad

This free-cellphone-is-no-big-deal argument is trotted out by Prashant Bhushan, secretary of the Committee of Judicial Accountability: ‘‘Even if there is an irregularity, the issue involved is very minor and I don’t think we should make a big deal about it. I don’t think the committee will take it up because we would rather conserve our energies for bigger things.’’

Says jurist and Rajya Sabha MP Fali Nariman: ‘‘A judge is not going to be influenced by such trifles.’’