Opinion 20% becomes at least 50%
We have a Contempt of Courts Act,1971. Under this,anything that scandalizes or tends to scandalize,or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,any court is contempt.
-
Share -
-
-
We have a Contempt of Courts Act,1971. Under this,anything that scandalizes or tends to scandalize,or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,any court is contempt. There are also provisions in the Constitution (Articles 129,142) and Supreme Court rules on procedures for contempt.
In principle,this can be a constraint to discussing corruption in the judiciary. People,however,seem to have become somewhat more upfront and in 2008,at a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices,PM himself talked about corruption in judiciary and in the same year,Supreme Court admitted there could be black sheep in judiciary too.
The Bench said,Black sheep are everywhere. Its only a question of degree. And here is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha on this issue: One Chief Justice has said that only 20 per cent of the judges are corrupt. Another judge has lamented that there are no internal procedures to look into the allegations. Therefore,the necessity of a mechanism is being emphasized by the judges themselves.
Impressions of corruption are reinforced if assets are not divulged,exemptions are sought from RTI Act and there is no satisfactory mechanism for inquiry into allegations and misconduct by judges. The proposed Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill is hardly satisfactory.
Earlier,assertions about corruption were often restricted to lower judiciary. But now,they extend to High Court and Supreme Court.
There is an affidavit by Prashant Bhushan,after an interview with him resulted in a contempt-of-court case. Both Prashant Bhushan and Shanti Bhushan,impleaded through an additional affidavit,claim 8 of last 16 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court have been corrupt. The affidavits arent proof,they are circumstantial. But having read Prashant Bhushans affidavit,the circumstantial evidence against K N Singh,A M Ahmadi,M M Punchhi,A S Anand and Y K Sabharwal is pretty strong.
That against Ranganath Mishra is relatively weak. It is more moral in nature. Whats going to happen with these affidavits now? In many citizen perceptions,the judiciary (at least higher judiciary) has been perceived to be recourse against corruption by legislature and executive.
Thats now taken a beating and if the Supreme Court is tainted,cynicism is all that is left. That taint cant be removed by anyone else,not under the present law. It is up to the judiciary to pursue these allegations,register FIRs and commence investigations.
If thats not done,one will be left with the impression that judges have a lot to hide.
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
