[Assam] Article

[anitak goswami]

When the judge courts corruption


 — Ranen Kumar Goswami 



On
February 19, 2009, the Lok Sabha endorsed a three-fold salary hike for
judges. But just before that, taking part in the discussion on the High
Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service)
Amendment Bill, 2008 members did not try to hide their concern over the
incidence of corruption in the judiciary, rising pendency of cases and
long vacations that the courts continue to take. Replying to the debate
on the Bill, Law Minister HR Bhardwaj called corruption in the
judiciary a serious matter. He said, “There is public disquiet and
criticism over cases of corruption in the judiciary. I am cognizant of
that. I have told the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that your in-house
procedure is weakening and you require statutory support.” He, however,
expressed his helplessness in taking any action against errant judges;
because he said no action is possible before amendment to the
Constitution. This is an area where even angels fear to tread. When we
are tinkering with the judiciary, we have to be very careful”, the
minister added. The Bill seeks to raise the salary of the chief justice
of India from Rs 33,000 to 1 lakh per month and that of other apex
court judges from Rs 30,000 to Rs 90,000 per month. It proposes to
increase the salary of the chief justice of High Courts from Rs 30,000
to Rs 90,000 per month and that of high court judge from Rs 26,000 to
Rs 80,000 per month.

 In October, 2008, the Chief Justice of
India, Justice KK Balakrishnan asked the Chief Justices of all High
Courts to weed out judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary who
were found to be of doubtful integrity or incompetent. In a letter to
the Chief Justice, Justice Balakrishnan said that under the relevant
rules the “appropriate authority” could compulsorily retire a
government servant if it was in public interest to do so. He said: “the
basic objective behind this provision is to retire those who are found
to be unfit, incompetent and ineffective or with doubtful integrity,
reputation and utility. Premature retirement is not a stigma and no
civil consequences follow such retirement.” As per Supreme Court
directions contained in the All India Judges Association case, a review
should be made first on the judicial officers attaining the age of 50
years and then at 55 and this would be in addition to the normal review
conducted at the end of 58 years, he added. The evaluation should be
done on the basis of past record of service, character rolls, quality
of judgements and other relevant materials before the judicial officers
attain 58 years. Service rules could be amended to provide for such
assessments. The letter said: “If implemented in right earnest, such a
provision will keep deviant behaviour in check, besides getting rid of
those who are found to be indolent, ineffective or with doubtful
integrity. I would like to inform you that such review in respect of
officers and employees of Supreme Court is being carried out when they
reach the age of 50/55/56/57/58 and 59 years and has proved to be quite
effective.”

Transparency International, in its Global Corruption
Report 2007 released on May 25, 2007, came out with a shocking
revelation that the estimated amount paid in bribes to the lower
judiciary in India during 2006 was around Rs 2,630 crore. The report
pointed out that the Centre for Media Studies, which had conducted a
countrywide survey in 2005 on public perceptions and experiences of
corruption in the lower judiciary, found that bribes seemed to be
solicited as the price of getting things done. Of late, clouds have
gathered over the conduct of some members of the higher judiciary. The
multi-crore Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) scam caught the
country’s attention some years ago. Three judges of Punjab and Haryana
High Court were found to be taking favours from Ravi Sidhu, former PPSC
chairman. After an inquiry, the State Vigilance Department found Rs 8
crore in Sidhu’s bank account. The former Chief Justice, AB Saharya,
had conducted an in-house inquiry on the instructions of Chief Justice
of India BN Kirpal to find out whether any judge was involved in the
scam. Following the inquiry, work was withdrawn from the three judges
on June 28, 2002, but restored months later. While one of the judges
was exonerated, another was let off with a warning. The third judge was
asked to go on leave, after which he retired. In another instance,
former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice, VK Jain wrote to
the Chief Justice of India recommending the transfer of senior high
court judge, Justice Mehtab Singh Gill on the ground of judicial
impropriety saying Gill had opted to become the administrative judge of
Ludhiana when he was aware that a property case involving his son,
advocate Amandeep Singh Gill, was pending there.

Of late, the
two developments that have embarrassed the country’s judiciary are the
cash-for-judge scam and the misappropriation of money by a high court
judge. The first incident took place in August 2008 when a bag
containing Rs 15 lakh belonging to Delhi hotelier Ravinder Singh was
‘wrongly’ delivered at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of
Punjab and Haryana High Court by the peon of advocate Sanjeev Bansal.
Later it was claimed that the packet was meant for Justice Nirmal
Yadav. The case went to the CBI, which on January 23, 2009 recommended
that Yadav should be prosecuted for bribery. The second incident
involves Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. Before his
elevation as high court judge in 2003, Sen was an advocate and
appointed receiver in a suit filed by the Steel Authority of India
against Shipping Corporation of India. He collected Rs 33,22,800 from
the purchaser of goods and kept it in his savings bank account. A
single judge, who heard the case, concluded that Sen had converted and
appropriated the amount without court authority and his conduct was
nothing short of criminal misappropriation.. Subsequently Sen deposited
Rs 57,65,204, the amount along with interest.. Thereafter he became high
court judge. On receipt of a report from the Chief Justice of Calcutta
High Court, the Chief Justice of India set up a three-member committee,
which concluded that “Justice Sen did not have honest intention right
from the year 1993 since be mixed the money he received as a receiver
and his personal money and converted the receiver’s money to his own
use. There has been misappropriation (at least temporarily) of sale
proceeds, mere monetary recompense under the compulsion of a judicial
order does not obliterate the breach of trust and misappropriation of
receiver’s funds for his personal gain, and the conduct of Justice Sen
brought disrepute to the high judicial office and dishonour to the
institution of judiciary, undermining the faith and confidence reposed
by the public in the administration of justice. In the opinion of the
committee, the misconduct disclosed is so serious that it calls for
initiation of proceedings for his removal.”

On August 4, 2008,
the Chief Justice of India in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
said Justice Sen had committed impropriety. Recommending Sen’s removal
from office, the CJI informed the Prime Minister that the Judge
rejected the advice to resign or seek voluntary retirement after he was
found guilty of misconduct. The government has been sitting on the CJI
recommendation since then. Six month later on February 20, 2009, maybe
running out of patience, 58 members of the Rajya Sabha, from across the
political spectrum, submitted a motion to Chairman Hamid Ansari for the
removed of Justice Sen. Later at a press meet, the MPs said they
resorted to this step as the government did not act on the CJI’s
letter. On of them said, “since nothing has happened during the last
six months, this initiative was taken.”



(PUBLISHED IN THE ASSAM TRIBUNE ON THE 9TH OF MARCH)




      Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Grab now http://in.promos.yahoo.com/address