If PJ Thomas can go, why can’t tainted judges

Verdicts that elaborately examine the constitution and legal precedents give a lot of scope to the mushrooming number of ‘experts’ to offer ‘simple’ judgments.

The PJ Thomas judgment talks of institutional integrity. It raises doubt on the high-powered committee’s decision and strikes down his appointment as chief of the central information commission (CVC).

It has been argued that a corruption case was pending against Thomas much before he was appointed CVC. He didn’t commit any wrong since he was made chief of the corruption watchdog last year.

The conditions preceding his removal are quite akin to those applicable to judges.

Then why so much time has been taken in getting rid of certain judges against whom complaints of misconduct or corruption are pending.

Then chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan had recommended removal of Calcutta high court judge Soumitra Sen for allegedly committing financial irregularities when he was a lawyer. But the Supreme Court (SC) collegium found him fit to become a judge.

The issue in the Thomas and Sen episodes is the same. It’s another case that an inquiry panel probed the allegations against Sen and found him guilty and he awaits impeachment.

It’s merely because Sen is a judge, he is safe. Had he been a Thomas, his appointment would have been scrapped by Supreme Court. The principle of integrity does apply to a court of law. It does apply to a judge as it applies to Thomas.  

Interestingly, even Balakrishnan is facing flak for alleged corruption by his kin. He is facing pressure to resign as chief of National Human Rights Commission.

Mind you, Supreme Court is seized of a petition seeking his removal. Let’s see what happens now.