Corruption in judiciary : Confirmed by Union Law Minister

So finally judiciary  also joined list officially

Something’s rotten in Allahabad HC:   SC
(reproduced from Times of India, Mumbai edition dated 27-11-2010, page no. 01)

‘Many Complaints About Judges’ Integrity’

New Delhi: At a time when exposes of scams have roiled the political class, the Supreme Court has trained the spotlight on growing corruption in the higher judiciary with a stunningly candid acknowledgement about the sleaze prevalent in the country’s largest high court. “Something is rotten in the Allahabad high court,’’ Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said on Friday as they expressed their distress over rampant nepotism and corruption in the HC.

   “Some judges (of the HC) have their kith and kin practising in the same court, and within a few years of starting practice, sons or relatives of the judges become multi-millionaires, have huge bank balances, luxurious cars, huge houses and are enjoying a luxurious life. This is a far cry from the days when sons and relatives of judges could derive no benefit from their relationship and had to struggle at the Bar like any other lawyer,’’ the bench said.

   “We are sorry to say but a lot of complaints are coming against certain judges of Allahabad HC relating to their integrity,’’ said the bench while requesting the HC Chief Justice to take strong “house cleaning measures’’, including recommending transfers, of the “incorrigibles’’.

   The observation echoed what many have felt for long but have been unable to express for fear of being punished for contempt of court.      Quoting Shakespeare’s “Something is rotten in Denmark’’from Hamlet,the bench said, “It can similarly be said that something is rotten in Allahabad high court.’’

Will SC make info on judges’ appt public?   

The apex court is also mulling making the appointment process in the higher judiciary public. A bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar referred to a constitution bench the crucial question on disclosing correspondence between the CJI and the law minister on appointment of HC and SC judges under RTI.

Allahabad HC needs house cleaning: SC

The Allahabad HC is the largest in the country with a sanctioned strength of 160 judges. However, it is operating with only 73 judges as there are 87 vacancies.    However, the bench clarified that all lawyers who had close relatives as judges of the HC could not be said to be misusing that relationship. “Some are scrupulously taking care that no one should lift a finger on this account (sic). However, others are shamelessly taking advantage of this relationship,’’ it said.

   The trigger for the outburst came from the two exparte interim orders passed by a judge of Allahabad HC even when the issue concerned was outside the jurisdiction of the HC, belonging to the domain of the Lucknow bench of the HC. The SC said, “We are of the opinion that the two ex-parte interim orders of the single judge of the Allahabad HC were clearly passed on extraneous considerations’’.

   It said, “The faith of the common man of the country is shaken to the core by such shocking and outrageous orders such as the kind which have been passed by the single judge.’’ After venting their feelings, the two judges said both the Allahabad HC and its Lucknow bench “need some house cleaning’’.

Bribery a norm in govt offices, says Delhi HC

( reproduced from Times of India, Mumbai edition of 01-12-2010, page 18 )

New Delhi: Bribery has become an accepted norm and no work is done without paying money in government offices, the Delhi high court said while sending a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) employee to 18 months imprisonment for accepting bribe. “The bribe culture in this country has increased so much that it is hard to imagine if any work gets done in government offices and in the offices of various public authorities without payment of bribe. If you have to receive payment from any official of any public authorities, you give speed money or bribe money,” Justice S N Dhingra said.

   “Everybody knows that no work is done without paying bribe. That is why no voice of resistance or objection is raised by co-employees in such cases.  No co-employee comes to help a harassed person either because of indifference or because they themselves indulge into similar practices,” the court said.      The court made the remarks while upholding the conviction of the accused for accepting a bribe of Rs 1,500 way back in 1993.