The appointment of Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi as the Chief Justice of India has brought the curtain down on a controversy that should not have arisen at all. The government has gone entirely by the rule book and recent precedents when it appointed the seniormost judge as Justice J.S. Verma's successor. Any other decision would have been unwelcome as Justice Punchhi's name was recommended by the outgoing Chief Justice. Whether the government was bound by the advice of the retiring Chief Justice was not germane to the issue. There is considerable merit in the argument that when every person who has made it to the Supreme Court Bench is capable of handling the job of Chief Justice, seniority becomes the major, if not sole, determinant. After all, the apex court's judgment on the modalities of appointing judges had left the government with practically no option but to go by the seniority principle. It is for precisely this reason that a section of the lawyers tried to raise the issue of Justice Puncchi's allegedly questionable deals.Unfortunately, the intention was not so much to expose corruption as to prevent him from occupying the highest judicial post. The timing of the campaign and the manner in which it was conducted gave the distinct impression that they were out to settle scores with him by making it difficult for the Chief Justice to recommend his name.Perchance they had succeeded in their attempt, it would have been the first time a section of the Bar had sabotaged the appointment of a Chief Justice. It is a different matter that a majority of the Supreme Court lawyers had come out in defence of Justice Punchhi. Ordinarily, there should have been no occasion for lawyers to debate the conduct of a judge, who should be above suspicion. In no case should the Bar play any role in the selection and appointment of judges. Needless to say, the lawyers on both sides of the divide have not covered themselves with glory by the acrimonious debate they had over the advisability or otherwise of petitioningthe President against Justice Punchhi. In any case, the appointment of the Chief Justice of India was too solemn a matter to be discussed at Bar meetings. Obviously, the intention was to initiate a trial without following any of the rules that should govern it. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from Justice Verma's recommendation is that he found no substance in the charges against his seniormost colleague.The controversy, however unwarranted it may have been, is one more reminder that the system is yet to evolve a proper mechanism to deal with charges against judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The cumbersome and ineffective nature of impeachment, which is the only solution the Constitution recommends to deal with errant judges, was brought home in the case of Justice V. Ramaswamy. He was able to continue in office till his actual superannuation despite all the charges of misconduct against him. The need for a less complicated and less time-consuming mechanism which will not impair the independence of the judiciary while helping it to identify the black sheep among judges cannot be overemphasised. At a time when all other organs of the state seem to have failed and the people look up to the judiciary to set standards of propriety for the nation, controversies of this kind are best averted.
