Twitter
Advertisement

Govt plans law to probe misconduct of judges

Law minister M Veerappa Moily said the declaration of assets made by judges (under the Judges Declaration of Assets Bill) will be treated as a 'legal document'.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

While a debate rages in the higher judiciary about bringing judges’ assets in the public domain, the government plans to table a legislation in the winter session of Parliament that makes judges who conceal their assets liable for “action” for this misconduct.

The Centre’s plan to table the Comprehensive Judges Inquiry Bill, which it says will replace the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, comes even as justice K Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana high court and justice DV Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka high court declared their assets. While justice Kannan put out details of his assets on his blog, justice Kumar declared his assets to the registrar general.

There were reports of justice K Chandru of the Madras high court offering to declare his assets in public.

This has added fuel to the debate triggered by justice Kumar, who wrote an article in a newspaper questioning the authority of chief justice of India (CJI) KG Balakrishnan to “speak on behalf of all judges of superior courts”.

The CJI, who called justice Kumar “publicity crazy”, had reasoned that making judges’ assets public will make them prone to harassment.  

The government, too, had taken this line as a clause in the Judges Declaration of Assets Bill and prevented the assets of the Supreme Court and high court judges from being open to public scrutiny. However, the Centre had to withdraw the legislation from the Rajya Sabha with the opposition refusing to buy this line.

The new Bill will improve on the existing Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, that solely deals with difficult impeachment procedures and does not touch upon other complaints against judges, law minister M Veerappa Moily said.

The declaration of assets by the judges under the proposed new law will be treated as a “legal document”, and if a complaint is made against a judge, it could be used to investigate the matter, the law minister said.

Moily, however, feels the judiciary can’t be bracketed with politicians, bureaucrats and public servants because “they cannot hold a press conference if something is said about them”.

Chief justice Balakrishnan, however, again joined the issue with justice Kumar, insisting he had the right to speak about judges.

Stressing that one man’s outburst couldn’t “embarrass” the judiciary, chief justice Balakrishnan said high court judges were free to disclose their assets but a “consensus” is needed among the Supreme Court judges.

Former chief justice VN Khare
“The Constitution is silent on the role of the CJI, but there has to be someone to speak on the behalf of the entire judiciary including judges of HCs…SC’s superiority over them is limited to adjudicating on their judgments in appeals.”

From Justice Kannan’s blog
Justice K Kannan, 55, has reportedly declared that he has Rs1.03 lakh in bank deposits, investment of Rs3.87 lakh and Rs10.59 lakh as deposits in his wife’s name. He also replied to lawyer Prashant Bhushan of the Committee for Judicial Accountability, which has sent letters to 600 judges asking them to disclose their assets.
“I hold views against your [the committee’s] demand and I have attached a document for my point of view. Having said this, I still have no qualms about letting you know about my riches or lack of it.”

Justice Kannan has written: “Let us evolve mechanisms within the judiciary itself to regulate its conduct. If the existing mechanism is perceived as not being successful in preventing corruption in the judiciary, let us evolve better procedures for their recruitment and removal… That will give us answer to who shall access the records of assets of judges.”

Justice Kannan, who hails from Chennai, also raises some pertinent questions like “what do you do with corrupt judges?”
 
Amended office of profit law upheld
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the amended office of profit law with retrospective effect. The UPA government had passed the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act with retrospective effect three years ago.

The amendment came after a controversy broke out over the disqualification of Samajwadi Party MP Jaya Bachchan for holding an office of profit.

A Gujarat-based NGO, Consumer Education Research Society, had then challenged the controversial amendment. It was alleged that the certain posts were exempted from the office of profit law to help Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, who was then the chairperson of the National Advisory Council. The apex court, however, said Parliament could enact the law with retrospective affect.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement