As the Justice P.D. Dinakaran issue has laid bare, there are things to be fixed, and fast, in the way matters concerning judges are handled. Therefore, the necessity and urgency of the Judges Standards and Accountability Bill — which replaces the lapsed Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 — cannot be overemphasised.
Set to be introduced in the current session of Parliament, the new bill is intended to adequately address corruption in the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India self-appoints; and dismissing a sitting judge — by means of parliamentary impeachment — is so difficult that it hasn't happened yet. Now that an inquiry committee has been formed to investigate the complaints against Chief Justice Dinakaran of the Karnataka high court, it is pertinent to keep in focus what the higher judiciary lacks and what it needs.
The lessons of the case are that the absence of an accessible platform for citizens to complain against a sitting judge cannot endure, nor can the absence of a mechanism for such a judge to defend himself. Above all, the appointments procedure — one of the main, recent criticisms against the apex court — needs to be made transparent. Finally, the dismissals method should be sped up and spared the current layered complexity. In any case, quick decision-making that soon produces results, one way or another, is imperative. The new bill provides for both judges and non-judges to inquire into complaints while penalising frivolous and motivated complainers. But significantly, it does not deal with appointments. That ground must be cleared too. Merely urging the recommendation only of names of unquestionable merit and integrity, as the law minister has done, may not suffice for long. The next time a controversy surfaces, procedures cannot be so long drawn-out.
