SCRAP JUDGES ACCOUNTABILITY BILL

Sagar Media Inc:THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF INDIA NEW DELHIPRESS RELEASE NDelhi,March 5:
Sharp divisions within the legal fraternity were witnessed at a seminar on the proposed Judicial Accountability Bill here today with senior lawyers Fali Nariman and Prashant Bhushan opposing it on different grounds and a host of Bar leaders including former Chief Justice of India Justice J S Verma supporting it and suggesting effective amendments.

Speaker after speaker took pot shots at the alleged indiscretions of former Chief Justices including Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Sabharwal even as they heaped lavish praise on the incumbent Chief Justice Mr S H Kapadia and defended judicial activism at the seminar on ‘Standards of Judicial Conduct & Accountability Bill, 2010: A Critical Look’ organised by the Bar Association of India.

Asserting that “if judiciary crumbles, democracy is at perils”, Justice Verma sought to highlight what he called ‘omissions’ of the proposed Bill stating, “fear of contempt of court for speaking truth should no more be there”.

Maintaining that majority of judges continued to be honest, he said since most complaints against judges may not be correct, results of investigations into such frivolous and false complaints should be made public.

Taking a dig at some judges for submitting affidavits before Tribunals etc on their letter heads in lieu of monetary considerations, Justice Verma said, “whatever is forbidden to do directly, you cannot do indirectly”. He suggested that the Bill must have a provision to ensure that the post-retirement conduct of the judges do not undermine the office that they have held”.

The former Chief Justice suggested that the apex court judges may be given their salary as life-long pension. He wondered why the Government was shy of Right to Information with regard to complaints against judges, if it wanted to ensure transparency in judicial functioning.

However, senior lawyer and constitutional expert Fali S Nariman opposed the proposed Bill stating that it would be “counter productive’.

Asserting that good judges still outnumber the bad ones, he said, “leave it as it is. If you have to leave well alone, you have to sometime leave ill also along”.

Calling for the repeal of the Judges Protection Act of 1985, he said if was far better and safer to catch the bad eggs in the judicial basket when they retire. “There should be no immunity after they retire”, he said.

Apprehending that it was very easy to tutor a private television channel to carry out a corruption charge against a judge, he said for the sake of an independent and fearless judiciary, “don’t give every tom, dick and harry the right to complain of misdemeanour against sitting judges”.

Judicial activist and senior lawyer Mr Prashant Bhushan, in his address, said the sheer amount of stakes involved in cases running into lakhs of crores of rupees have become the incentive for corruption in judiciary since there was no check and the route of impeachment was an “impractical and unworkable mechanism”.

Criticising the proposed Bill for the tedious procedures including several committees and utmost secrecy, he said the legislation was “of no use” and strongly advocated the need to set up a five member Judicial Complaints Commission , which would be independent of both Government and judiciary besides “broad-basing” the selection procedure for judicial appointments.

Presiding over the session, Mr Anil B Divan, President, Bar Association of India, “make better appointments. Everything else will fall in place.”
BAI General Secretary Mr Prashant Kumar regretted that it was a “sad day” that a Bill had to be brought in to enforce judicial conduct and accountability. “Judicial conduct is like immunity in the human body. It has to come from within. It is only when body is weak or diseased that you need external intervention”.

Countering Mr Nariman’s argument in favour of post-retirement action against errant judges, Mr P P Rao, Associate President of the BAI wondered, “what do you catch after retirement?”.He called for incorporating a provision wherein a judge can be put out of work or suspended, if serious charges sufficient to warrant an inquiry are made against him.

Terming as “disastrous”, the performance of the Supreme Court collegium which decides on appointment of judges to the apex court, he called for creation of a broad based search committee which would suggest a panel of names to the collegium with integrity and dignity of conduct as its criterion.

Mr Rao lamented that “seniority has become an obstacle in merit”.
Supporting Mr Prashant Bhushan, former Attorney General of India, Mr Ashok Desai highlighted the need for setting up a Judicial Commission which would not only look into complaints against judges but also appointments and transfers.

Regretting that High Court judges were seen as “subservient” to Supreme Court collegiums, he said the age limit for appointment to the apex court should be equivalent to that of the High Courts.Mr Desai also recommended study of the American model of retirement wherein they were paid a pension equivalent to their salaries and served appellate courts post-retirement.

He, however, welcomed the Bill hoping it would set come judicial standards.
Former Additional Solicitor General of India Mr K N Bhat deprecated the tendency to transfer suspect judges to states with lesser political clout such as Sikkim and said, “there should be a dog house where suspect judges should be kept”.Calling for a little more teeth in the Bill, he said “no judge is corrupted except with the cooperation of lawyers” and action should be taken against such lawyers notwithstanding the provisions in the Advocates Act.

He, however, maintained that the country should give the proposed Bill “a try”.
(Prashant Kumar)Hony. General Secretary