much has been discussed on this issue but in the absence of legal literacy and awareness of legal provisions no major change is going to happen.

no doubt a sustantial part of the judiciary has gone corrupt but the people are also responsible for this situation.

I accept the comments of the author Mr. B.K. Gupta, now a days the post of the judge in tial court is not based upon the legal knowledge. The recruitment of the judges depends upon somany factors. Judiciary is influenced by corruption. One of my friend says that "Judicial officer is a buetiful girl. Advocates are those who are trying to flat that girl with a proposal for love. They throw flowers on that girl frequently to flat that girl. It is to the Judicial officer to accept that proposal or not. If that girl is honest, she will not flat to the guys. If the girl is not honest she will be accept the proposal of the guy". On that comment I observed that somany people try to flat a beutiful girl [i.e. Judicial officer]. If the girl is honest, no body will get success to bribe the Judicial officer. I think the judicial officer is nothing but God. They should not bend for the cheap tricks and they should not accept any bribe. The judgments should not be based upon citations on every occasion. The judgments should be coupled with "NYAYA & DHARMA". Nyaya is diferent from Dharma. When Nyaya is coupled with Dharma, we will see the better society. There is one proverb in sanskrit " Durbhalasya balam Raja". Now a days there are no rajas. The power of judge is like raja. therefore they should be cautious while rendering judgments.      

The analysis by Mr.Hemanth regarding inherent powers of the court is appreciable and all the more appropriate looking to the quality of justice which is deteriorating day by day.Previously lower courts were responsible and as these judges are promoted to  higher courts the quality of justice in higher courts ai also diminishing.
Refresher courses for judges should be held to train the judges about such powers and to guide them about natural justice.
Citations in judgements is another problem which byepasses the truth and facts of the case and help in making the judiciary corrupt.
Judges in lower courts have started mentioning the phrase like- clean hands- to byepass the facts of the case.
Looking to the state of the judiciary these days "MAKING JUDICIARY ANSWERABLE" is important.

Making judiciary answerable is more important than making judiciary corruption- free.If the judiciary is made answerable one can ask for the reason for arriving at a particular decision and the probability of questioning would restrict the judge to decide the matter suitable to the interest/mindset of the judge and it naturally would improve the quality of justice and corruption would be controlled automatically.

SO RAISE YOUR VOICE FOR MAKING JUDICIARY ANSWERABLE

There one more  ANNA HAJARE is needed for the reform in judiciary!

Dear Mr Sarvesh

It appears very difficult to extract desirable results from Lokpal Bill.Anna Hazare's proposed Jan Lokpal Bill Draft if accepted by the Govt as proposed would be of no help as its clause 17 ,which restricts the Lokpal to consider matters which are sujudice,alone ,is strong enough to keep away the Lokpal.As you are advocate you can  very well understand that how easy it is to file a case in court remotely related with the matter that may be proposed to lokpal and keep the lokpal away.

So We need Anna Hazares but they should be able to analyse the anomalies of the system.

In my opinion ACTUALLY We need ANSWERABLE EXECUTIVE,ANSWERABLE LEGISLATION & ANSWERABLE JUDICIARY .

Judicial autonomy

“The new bill prescribes less exacting procedures.”

The chief justice of India SH Kapadia’s comments on the independence of the judiciary and its accountability in a system of checks and balances are significant in the context of the discussion on the Judicial Standards and Accountability bill which is before the Rajya Sabha now. The Lok Sabha has passed the bill and the Upper House is yet to take it up. The need for the bill, which replaces the Judges Inquiry Act, has been well accepted because it  provides a better system to deal with complaints of misconduct or other failings of members of the higher judiciary. The existing system which has nothing short of impeachment proceedings for effective action against an errant judge has been found to be inadequate in practice. The new bill which prescribes less exacting procedures is therefore welcome.

But some provisions of the bill have caused concern  in judicial circles and the chief justice may have been giving expression to it. The clause that seeks to prevent judges from making any comments on or criticism of constitutional functionaries, statutory bodies or officials in the form of obiter dicta is seen as a gag order on the judiciary. Many such comments from the bench have helped to put the issues before the court in a better perspective, though some have been controversial too. Banning them altogether may amount to restricting judicial freedom. There is also some disquiet over the provision to have non-judicial members in the oversight committee proposed by the bill. On the other hand, the scrutiny panel which makes a study of the complaint against a judge is proposed to have only members of the same court where the judge functions. This may cast doubts about the credibility of the vetting process. These issues call for more detailed discussions. This is especially important because the Lok Sabha passed the bill earlier this year without a debate.
 

An important lacuna in the bill is that it is silent on judicial appointments. The present collegium system, evolved by the Supreme Court, has been criticised for its lack of transparency. The setting up of an independent commission has often been suggested for selection of judges. This may call for separate legislation and should be considered.  The government has said that  it is ready to make changes in order to make the bill more effective and acceptable. This will not be difficult if judicial independence and accountability are considered  interdependent, as the chief justice indicated.

Judicial reforms should have priority: Moily
Hyderabad

Judicial reforms are necessary to usher in other positive changes, said M Veerappa Moily, Union Minister for Corporate Affairs, here on Sunday.

Citing the example of Singapore, Moily, a former Law Minister, highlighted the importance of judicial reforms. "In Singapore, the economic situation was in doldrums. The first thing Singapore addressed was judicial reform. It is only thereafter the economic prosperity of Singapore came.

 
"Just like right to information, right to employment, I think the day should come when we should have the right to justice in this country. Then we can definitely take our society far ahead," he said in his convocation address at the NALSAR University of Law here.

 
"Indian judiciary always served the great cause. Whenever we find that there is some confusion in terms of justice system, it is always judiciary which led the country forward," said Moily.

Talking about legal education, he said, "My slogan for legal education is expansion, inclusion and excellence. Expansion means we will have more manpower to fuel an efficient justice system...It is estimated that reducing the pendency (of cases) alone can add about two percent to our GDP."

Diversification of legal profession, especially by including lawyers from less privileged communities, would enhance the potential for representative democracy, he said.

"By practising inclusion, US law schools have ensured that underprivileged communities have sufficient representation....None other than Barack Obama used to work for the colored underprivileged community in Chicago before entering politics."
 

Judiciary must improve its credibility : former CJI

The judiciary needs to look within and finds ways of improving its credibility in the eyes of the public so that it can attract academically brilliant youngsters to join the institution, a former Chief Justice of India said on Sunday.
Former CJI Justice JS Verma said that the debate on improvement of judiciary should focus on quality of judges rather than their quantity.

"If the head of country's judiciary soon after taking oath says that integrity is his only asset then he is clearly bothered about the public image of the institution he heads," Justice Verma told a gathering of former police officers. He was referring to the statement of CJI SH Kapadia, who had immediately after taking oath in May 2010, stated that the only asset he possessed was his integrity.

Justice Verma said efficient judges held the key to proper administration of justice for citizens of the country.

"If you have judges of good quality in lower judiciary, the headache of high courts and the Supreme Court would automatically reduce, but for that to happen, you need to attract good talent," the former CJI said.

"The failure of the judiciary and even the executive in convincing all the stakeholders for conducting a national-level exam to appoint judges  is a big example of self defeat," he said.