Corruption is a way of life in India and Judges are part of it. Courts are den of corruption. But they are kept above board for unknown reasons. They should be accountable for what they do. Right now rules at various levels protect them undeservedly.
Judges are also normal human beings picked up from the same society which has both honest and dishonest persons. If judges’ chairs would have been crafted from wood of some special tree which could convert even dishonest ones into honest ones, then instead of spending on implementation of ‘Right-To-Information Act’, stress should have been plantation of such trees giving wood having special effect to induce honesty!
Only victims created by an unaccountable judicial system can realise burnt of injustice showered on them by some wrong elements having found entry in our otherwise honest judicial system. Presently such judicial victims can only pray to almighty God rather than any human body (may it be even the highest authority in governance or judicial system of India) for punishing those who deliberately misuse super powers by Indian Constitution.
These self-assessed human-gods are further shielded with a perfect immunised cover with divine-like powers of contempt and defamation but at times misused like devil-power.
Journalists like Manoj Mitta and activists like Prashant Bhushan do deserve compliments for having shown courage for airing voices of dumb-mouthed judicial victims in Indian system. It is satisfying that power-duo Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohansingh have gifted India a real wonderful law in form of ‘Right-To-Information Act’ which has definitely made an ‘official’ dent to expose corruption and misconduct in Indian judicial system. Manoj Mitta should also be complimented for updating himself and readers by a regular peep at decisions of Central Information Commission especially those relating to judiciary
We just don't seem to get it. The normal standards of accountability don't apply to judges. We are unable to grasp their argument that, much as it is desirable in other institutions, transparency in the judiciary will compromise its independence, a larger constitutional value. Hence, we persist with the folly of expecting judges to be swept away by the wave of transparency triggered by RTI.
This is evident from the two latest attacks on judges on July 17. First, this incorrigible sceptic, Prashant Bhushan, mobilised a statement from 25 eminent citizens denouncing a proposed Bill, which prohibits the declarations of assets made by judges to their respective chiefs from being made public. The statement fails to appreciate Law Minister Veerappa Moily's sensitivity in coming up with a draft that reflects a consensus among judges. As if that were not bad enough, the statement is cheeky enough to suggest that, following the example of their American counterparts, our Lordships too should be transparent about their assets so that we could point out any "unusual accretion" or "false declaration".
Corruption is a way of life in India and Judges are part of it. Courts are den of corruption. But they are kept above board for unknown reasons. They should be accountable for what they do. Right now rules at various levels protect them undeservedly.
But it is not just civil society that is being irreverent to judges. For, the same day, just before shutting for the weekend, the Central Information Commission (CIC) released an order where it repeated its folly of trying to bring the Chief Justice of India under the ambit of RTI. It once again demolished the CJI's position that he need not disclose any information lying in his custody as he was independent and distinct from the Supreme Court, which is a public authority under RTI.
It may be recalled that when CJI K G Balakrishnan had first taken this view about a year ago, it was very much in the context of declarations of assets. Since those declarations were in his custody, the CJI held then that the Supreme Court registry would not entertain any RTI queries concerning them. Yet, in its latest order in another case, the CIC defied the CJI saying, "The institution and its head cannot be two distinct Public Authorities. They are one and the same. Information, therefore, available with the Chief Justice of India must be deemed to be available with the Supreme Court of India."
Like us, the CIC too doesn't seem to get it. The general logic doesn't apply to judges. When others take refuge in opacity, we are justified in suspecting that they are hiding corruption. But when judges wrap themselves in a veil of secrecy, we have to take it that they are actually doing so for our good, so that they are not distracted by allegations of corruption against themselves.
Ø If you have nothing to hide, why hide and create suspicion.
Ø You hide because you fear that disclosure would do more harm than hiding.
Ø The Evidence Act, 1972 says so.
Ø If you are asked to produced something in your possession and you don't produce it on demand, the presumption is that if produced it would go against your interest.
Ø I have addressed a few mails to your counterpart Mr. Dhananjay Mahapatra under the heading "HIS MASTERS VOICE". I find that you are echoing the sentiments of Judiciary, as they know that era of their secrecy is over and soon they would be under Public Scrutiny.
Ø When Judge after Judge is found indulging in corrupt practices, amassing wealth, how could we go with your line of reasoning?
Ø There is also blackmailing going on. This particular Judge from Punjab & Haryana High Court who is allegedly being given a clean chit, had threatened that she alone is not involved and if persecuted she would expose all names. Is it not blackmailing?
Ø In my humble opinion, JUDICIARY IS THE CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION IN THE COUNTRY. IT IS THE FOUNTAINHEAD.
Ø Least educated or qualified people occupy the highest position in judiciary. I am sorry to say that many of Judges do not have basic knowledge of English to read, understand and interpret law.
Ø What we need is a common code of conduct for all public servants, be it bureaucracy, members of legislatures, elected representative, constitutional appointees, and Judges. They must declare their assets every year, criminal record, if any, so on and so forth.
Ø And lastly pardon my saying this, what about Journalists, Newspapers & Electronic Media. You are wise enough to appreciate what I mean. We cannot wait for another sixty years for freedom; it should come to us now, and we would get it.
Ø I have not said anything worse that what you have said for Prashant Bhushan.Probably my knowledge of English is low or my IQ is low. I could not make out the final verdict. Are the judges to be in the category of 'King cannot be wrong' or they are also 'not infallible' category? In my simple mind like all public servants judges also including CJI should declare assets. They are also human beings. Even if the majority of them are incorruptible there can be
One way of coming to terms with this distinction is to re-adopt
the outdated notion that king could do no wrong. Going by his logic, Justice Balakrishnan does seem to suggest some such blanket immunity to judges. If some judge has made an unusual accretion to his assets or has made a false declaration of them, it should be no cause for concern to us, the consumers of justice. It's time we realised that judges have their inscrutable reasons. We should just be grateful to them for whatever justice they dispense to us, in their magnanimity and in their good time. Don't bring the notions of accountability and transparency into this one-of-a-kind relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment