Comment

Offcourt...

When a judge tries someone, he himself is on trial. It's an ongoing dispensation. Rarely there is a public outcry against a court judgment and when people have an adverse view of a verdict it becomes a movement to reinforce the basic principle of justice for which the institution of judiciary is in place.

During hearings of pleas seeking probes into allegations against a high-ranking bureaucrat or a minister, judges could be heard recalling the old adage - 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion'. A probe could clear the clouds of suspicion over the men in power, they would say.

It may be an uphill task but not an impossible exercise to bring public servants to book. But experience shows that it's unimaginable to expect the same treatment to judges holding high constitutional positions. No doubt there have been varied estimates on the degree of corruption in judiciary.

It is strongly felt that some other government sectors are far above the justice system on the list of tainted services. At the same time, it's an accepted fact the about 3 cr pending cases in different courts do affect at least every third member of the populace.

Therefore, the probity in judicial life is of far more importance for the simple reason that it's commonly believed that imparting justice is a divine job and those administering it must be addressed as 'My Lord' or 'Your Honour' . Those who enter courtrooms are expected to bow before the judges. These gestures are addressed to men who hold the chair of justice.

The men have and will always retire, but the seat of justice can't.

Amidst public outcry against increasing corruption in judiciary in recent years, lawmakers and government pacified the people saying a judicial council would be set up. Among other purposes, it would also deal with allegations of corruption or misconduct that an aggrieved person or a group makes. This proposal has been reduced in the form a bill. Whether it would be enacted into a law is a million-dollar query.

One of the features of this bill is that there would be a code of conduct for judges. Until these are decided and codified in law, the 16-point 'reinstatement of values' adopted by the national chief justices conference in 1999 would remain in force.

In fact, sitting and retired judges are against reinforcement of discipline among them by the government. Moreover, the judges argue they have an internal mechanism for redressing complaints of misconduct or corruption against them. However, there is a lack of official or unofficial information about any decision so far made by the in-house mechanism either against a complainant or a judge.

It is argued that in the forthcoming hearing on an appeal by journalists, whose pleading for truth as a defence had been rejected by the Delhi high court in the ex-chief justice of India YK Sabharwal's 'defamation' case, the 16-point charter may be put to judicial test.

The charter starts with the adage 'justice must be visible' and goes on to add the principle 'maintaining faith among people'.

Significantly, it also says that "a Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a member of his family, a close relation or a friend is concerned".