INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY-A PERSPECTIVE

 INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY-A PERSPECTIVE

By Shri. T.L.Rammohan

Three reports published in the course of the last year are significant. In one case the Chief Justice is reported to have advised the Union of India to move for the impeachment of a sitting Judge of the Caclutta High Court. In another report, the Chief Justice of India is reported to have authorized the questioning of two judges of Punjab High Court by CBI. In another case, it is reported that the permission for questioning a number of judicial officers in U.P is being sought.

The allegations against the Judge of the Calcutta High Court appear to relate to his conduct as an advocate. This sought to have been noticed by the collegium of the High Court or the Supreme Court before the person was elevated. Prima facie the alleged misconduct as an advocate should not bar him from exercising the powers of a judge as long as there is no allegation to his conduct as a Judge.

In the Punjab case also prima facie the conduct of judges qua their judicial office is not under investigation. The U.P case appears to involve a larger number of persons and investigation of persons who are not involved in judiciary and prima facie there  is no immediate need for involving the judicial officers especially when the allegations appear to relate to period prior to their assumption of office. It is not suggested that on the principle that sinners would become saints, judicial officers should be kept above probe by investigating agency. The need to preserve the reputation and esteem of judiciary as an institution should be the prime objective of every one.

The disposal of every case leaves behind a disappointed party. The phenomenal increase in litigation leads to a large increase of disappointed litigants. As more judges are appointed, their interaction with society also increases giving room for disgruntled persons to hurl allegations and abuses.

Permitting the questioning of judicial officers by the investigating officers who function under the Executive may well begin the end of the independence of judiciary. As things stand today, the Executive through its several agencies has sufficient means to interfere with the affairs of the judges and providing another avenue would make them more fragile.

The proper course perhaps would be to judge the Judges by a committee of peers and in case the recalcitrant judge is not willing to resign or retire, the power of transfer could be exercised or in a given case, the Chief Justice could be instructed not to provide any judicial and administrative work to the delinquent Judge. Only in exceptional cases the power of the Parliament to impeach should be resorted to.

One should also remember that in these days, due to media boom, the cases are sensationalized and unpopular verdicts are termed denial of justice. Cases cannot be decided on the coverage of media and victim coming out with statements that justice triumphed after the verdict by trial of High Court. The rights of the accused for a fair trial should be assured till he exhausts the last Court of appeal and criticism by media of the judges in the course of time may also lead to investigation against judicial officers.

It is the duty of every citizen to preserve the integrity and independence of judiciary even at the cost of tolerating one or two black sheep.

(The author is a designated senior advocate practicing in High Court, Madras and Supreme Court of India.)