Former CJIs divided over ombudsman idea

Former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) appear to be divided over noted jurist Fali S Nariman's radical proposal for an ombudsman to lookcomplaints against judges before their appointment to the High Court or elevation to the Supreme Court.



Nariman had suggested that the ombudsman could carry out a discreet inquiry in consultation with the CJI.



In the midst of the controversy over the decision of the collegium headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan to recommend elevation of Karnataka HC Chief Justice P D Dinakaran to the SC as a judge, Nariman had proposed setting up an office of ombudsman in SC.



He had said, "We have today the need for a judicial ombudsman, above the CJI. It is the job of the office of ombudsman of the SC to inquire into complaints against HC and SC judges. Keep it to himself, quietly consult the CJI, take his views and move in a particular direction."



While former CJIs Justices A M Ahmedi and V N Khare were open to the idea and even wanted to institutionalise the ombudsman mechanism, other retired CJIs like Justices A S Anand and M M Punchi questioned the proposal, saying "who will police the ombudsman?"



Ahmedi was game for experimentation with Nariman's idea, though he was not too sure of its workability. "New times, new generation and new ideas. It's worth experimenting," he said. Justice Khare agreed with him and suggested giving the ombudsman body an institutional shape.



He said, "The CJI and collegium are overburdened with judicial and administrative work and it will be impossible for them to inquire into the antecedents and conduct of judges or candidates both on and off court before recommending their name for appointment or elevation."



He added, "The SC has no mechanism or agency to inquire into complaints against judges or candidates considered by the collegium headed by CJI. So, it's time to set up an institutionalise a mechanism, call it ombudsman or otherwise, to inquire into complaints against judges."



Justice Anand was not averse to the idea but said appointing an ombudsman would mean shifting of power of selection from one body to another. "And, by the way, who will look into alleged complaints of favouritism against the ombudsman," he asked.



Justice Punchi was more philosophical. "Every time a controversy hits judiciary, there are plenty of correctional ideas, all of which die down with the passage of time. And tell me, who will monitor the work of the ombudsman? We need to have faith somewhere and in someone. Should we appoint another ombudsman to keep watch over the first one," he said.