Tags:
Journalism of Courage
There are two reasons why the Indian Supreme Court is considered the worlds most powerful. First,Supreme Court judges self-appoint,with no inter-institutional checks and balances. Second,dismissing a judge is so difficult that it has not been done so far. Many of the recent criticisms of the apex courts perceived opacity have focused on these procedures for appointment and dismissal. The proposed Judges Standards and Accountability Bill is one such attempt,aiming to streamline the mechanism to discipline serving judges. Will it work?
Currently the only way judges can be disciplined is by parliamentary impeachment,a long drawn out process that made it to the floor of the House only once in the Justice V. Ramaswami case,to be finally rendered unsuccessful. Under this impeachment process,there is no formal way for citizens to complain against serving judges. Besides,the in-house complaint mechanism is shrouded in secrecy and armed with discretion. The Judges Inquiry Bill 2006 sought to change this by setting up the National Judicial Council,consisting of senior judges. Citizens could file complaints to the NJC against sitting judges,who could provide a range of punishments or recommend impeachment to Parliament. But the bill ran into rough weather before a Parliamentary Standing Committee,which wanted the NJC to consist of more than just serving judges. That bill lapsed,but its latest version renamed the Judges Standards and Accountability Bill reportedly does just that,creating Oversight as well as Scrutiny Committees,in which both judges and non-judges would look into complaints against serving judges.
