News about Corrupt Judges
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Querist) 17 September 2010
This query is : Resolved
Quote:
Eight chief justices were corrupt: Ex-law minister Shanti Bhushan Dares SC To Jail Him For Contempt
Former law minister Shanti Bhushan on Thursday created a sensation in the Supreme Court when he moved an application accusing eight former Chief Justices of India of “corruption”, and dared the court to send him to jail for committing “contempt of court”.
The eight allegedly corrupt CJIs feature among a list of 16 prepared by Bhushan, comprising Justices Ranganath Mishra, K N Singh, M H Kania, L M Sharma, M N Venkatachalliah, A M Ahmadi, J S Verma, M M Punchhi, A S Anand, S P Bharucha, B N Kirpal, G B Patnaik, Rajendra Babu, R C Lahoti, V N Khare and Y K Sabharwal.
Terming eight among the list as “definitely corrupt”, Bhushan put their names in a sealed cover and submitted it to the Supreme Court and virtually dared it to open it and read out the contents. He said of the 16, “six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt”.
The veteran lawyer — who became famous by successfully arguing for setting aside the election of Indira Gandhi in 1975, triggering a chain of events leading to the imposition of the Emergency — resorted to the dramatic action in solidarity with his son, lawyer Prashant Bhushan. Prashant is facing contempt charges for accusing current CJI S H Kapadia and his predecessors of misconduct.
“Make me a party along with Prashant Bhushan,” requested Bhushan Senior, who was law minister in the post-Emergency Morarji Desai Cabinet. Bhushan Senior challenged the SC to send him to jail for contempt for he was as much guilty as Prashant, with whom he was in total agreement.
Bhushan’s challenge can put the apex court in a bind. It may be constrained not to ignore the provocation, lest it start a trend.
RAISING OBJECTIONS
Submits list of 16 ex-CJIs in sealed cover to SC. Says 8 were "definitely corrupt", 6 “definitely honest” and “definite opinion can’t be expressed about other 2”
THE 16 EX-CHIEF JUSTICES MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT:
Ranganath Mishra, K N Singh, M H Kania, L M Sharma, M N Venkatachalliah, A M Ahmadi, J S Verma, M M Punchhi, A S Anand, S P Bharucha, B N Kirpal, G B Patnaik, Rajendra Babu , R C Lahoti, V N Khare, Y K Sabharwal 2 ex-CJIs gave info on graft, says Bhushan
New Delhi: The option of punishing the Bhushans, however, carries the risk of putting the father-son duo on a pedestal, and training the spotlight on their allegations when the issue of judicial corruption finds ready resonance with an expanding constituency. Of all the protests against alleged judicial corruption, the Bhushans’ is easily the most breathtaking and will play well with the gallery.
Bhushan sought to raise for the judiciary the cost of any punishment to him by saying that he was ready to face the consequences. “The applicant will consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest judiciary,” he said.
In his application, the former law minister spoke of both the growing corruption in the judiciary as well as the tendency to sweep it under the carpet in the name of protecting its reputation.
A defiant Bhushan claimed that two former CJIs were among the sources of his information on corruption among their peers. “In fact, two former CJIs had personally told the applicant while they were in office that their immediate predecessor and immediate successor were corrupt judges. The names of these four CJIs are included in the list of six corrupt CJIs,” Bhushan said.
“Unless the level of corruption in the judiciary is exposed and brought in the public domain, the institutions of governance cannot be activated to take effective measures to eliminate the evil,” he added. “It is a common perception that whenever such efforts are made by anyone, the judiciary tries to target him by the use of the power to contempt. It is the reputation of the judge which is his shield against any malicious and false allegations against him. He does not need the power of contempt to protect his reputation and credibility,” Bhushan said.
Proceedings against Prashant were initiated on a petition filed by amicus curiae Harish Salve accusing the former of making contemptuous remarks against CJI S H Kapadia and former CJIs. Besides, Bhushan Jr had also told a web newspaper that half of the last 16 former CJIs were corrupt. Shanti Bhushan said, “Since the applicant (Shanti Bhushan) is publicly stating that out of the last 16 CJIs, eight of them were definitely corrupt, he also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt.”
Corruption in judiciary had taken firm root in the last two to three decades, Bhushan said while deploring persistent attempts to cover it up in the belief that such charges might tarnish the image of the judiciary.
In affidavit, Bhushan says
Should be suitably punished for this contempt... would consider it an honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get people of India an honest and clean judiciary
Unquote:
Experts can post their sincere opinion on this popular news published in Times of India today.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 17 September 2010
There is nothing wrong in calling a spade a spade. Opportunity must be afforded to the Bhushans to prove their claim in public interest and national interest.They should not be shut. If they are unable to prove they will face appropriate punishment. If they prove then necessary action must be taken against those corrupt fellows,who deserve no respect at all.If we are really sincere and devoted and patriotic,we should unitedly support the courageous move of the Bhushans. Other wise we cannot call ourselves as human beings at all.The future and the fate of India should not be left to the whims and fancies of such a very few greedy and avracious corrupt rascals. We will be doing a very great disservice to the future generation,if we connive at this kind of corruption at the apex level.Thank you very much Mr.Loganathan for raising this topic. God Bless you.
Chanchal Nag Chowdhury
(Expert) 17 September 2010
Whether the Bhushans are right or not, to my mind, is not the issue.The opaque manner of appointing judges to the HC is certainly undesirable. Favouritism, nepotism,allegiance to a person etc.seem to be the considerations for becoming a judge, otherwise, how can one explain the fact that advocates reprimanded for corrupt practices have been elevated to the HC benches?
In fact no one knows the considerations which prompted an advocate's elevation to the bench. The persons so appointed,with negligible exceptions,are from the following categories:-
1.Son/son-in-law,daughter/daughter-in-law,brother/brother-in-law of ex-judges or politicians--most of whom either had no practice or had roaring malpractice.
2.Son/son-in-law,daughter/daughter-in-law,brother/brother-in-law, pliable junior of influential senior advocates.
3.Judges recommended by influential politicians.
Most of these judges are responsible for the piling of cases in courts as, being ignoramuses as they are, coupled with their obligations to their appointers, they tend not only to overlook CASE LAWS but decide matters on the basis of FACE LAWS if not CASH LAWS. Nowadays, discretion has become synonymous with discrimination.A set of tout-advocates now are busy with their latest information about which advocate can get an order in a particular court & briefs are doled out accordingly.In my nearly 27 years of practice, I have seen such things that some HC judges are so shameless that they openly handed out reverse orders depending upon the advocate appearing.Giving the pep advise that go to appeal if dissatisfied does not hold good as it is easier said than done especially the costs involved for doing so from a place like Calcutta.
It is not therefore surprising that the powers that be are keen to perpetuate this "PARAMPARA".Any talk of appointment of judges through a proper screening system is promptly nipped in the bud.Even our "honest" PM & his "incorruptible"Law Minister are conspicuous by their silence on this issue & seem to be more than eager to maintain status quo regarding appointment of HC & SC judges.
The nett result is-- honest and hard-working advocates lose all interest in studies & are joining political parties to further their careers.
Satya Mani Tiwari
(Expert) 17 September 2010
I have a different view of the issue, Jawahar Lal Nehru ji once stated that Police reflects the local Society same is the case with Judges, judges are selected through Advocate Quota and as we all know Advocates in India are more interested to defend their clients even if they have to bend LAW for the right money to their tune,some advocates become agents in this process and pass on the tainted money to the judges & also keep some part amount with them also in order to get decision in favour of their respective client, now here comes the moral/ethical part which is not taught in law schools in fact its an issue which comes through our Samskara. Ask your self are we honest to our profession, if we are not then why we point to those judges who were part of us some time back. My dear friends think, ponder ask your selves. I may be blunt but am I wrong, ask your conscience.Please share or critize my views.
