Wednesday, September 07, 2016

Judges INFERIOR to Constitution

S.O.S   e - Voice For Justice - e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.12..Issue.36........10/09/2016

Justice Chelameswar and Transparency in the judiciary – An Open letter to CJI
By: Shailesh Gandhi 

Subject : Justice Chelameswar and Transparency in the judiciary.
5 September, 2016
Justice T.S. Thakur, Chief Justice of India.

 Dear Sir,
     I am writing this letter in the spirit of seeking an improvement in the working of the judiciary, and not as an exercise of criticism. India has not been able to deliver the fruits of democracy as per the aspirations of ‘we the people’. I would submit that the responsibility lies with all the four estates as well as the citizens. One of the attributes on which we have been weak, is in recognizing citizen’s right to information. Despite Parliament passing a RTI Act which rates among the best five (Centre for Law and Democracy) laws as far its provisions are concerned, our rating in implementation is at a poor 66 (The World Justice Project).. It is well recognized that the first clarion call for transparency was given by Justice Mathew who said: – “The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security”.
The only restrictions on this fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) permitted by the constitution are those specified in Article 19 (2). The exemptions in the RTI Act cover all of these. Yet the performance of all three estates in implementation has not been very good. There was a hope that the judiciary with its pronouncements on RTI would be a role model and enforcer of this right. This hope has been belied. There are various instances which can be highlighted. To quote two: 1. The rules for RTI framed by many courts are not in consonance with the Act. Bombay High Court infact did not even frame the rules for a year, and some Courts have exemptions not in the Law. Some High Courts had kept 500 rupees as the application fee, while most other competent authorities charged 10 rupees. 2. The Supreme Court PIO challenged an order of the CIC in the High Court, and despite it being dismissed by a division bench it has been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not heard this matter since 2010.
As Aniket Aga wrote in ‘The Wire’ : While the government often comes under fire for not effectively implementing the RTI Act, few have noticed that India’s highest court violates the Act routinely, and with an impunity that makes the government’s evasion of the RTI Act seem benign.’ This is also evident in the way the court refuses to share information about the process of appointments and the reasoning behind it. Charges and complaints against judges are not shared with citizens, nor are the results of investigations. Lack of transparency and accountability are justified on the grounds of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The little man,-the citizen, – is considered immature by the powerful to monitor them. Ills that afflict the other estates are likely to be present in the judiciary as well.
The best safeguard and disinfectant is transparency and the demand for accountability which follows. Justice Chelameswar has very boldly raised the issue of lack of transparency in the judiciary, and the nation is grateful to him. Please do not try to ‘sort it out’. You must take this opportunity to bring accountability and better governance to the nation. There is an urgent need to ensure that all judicial vacancies are filled by a a proper transparent process so that the faith of people in our democracy is restored. It is impossible that the judges can by themselves spare adequate time to select the new judges with proper diligence. You must be aware that the increase in backlog of cases is around 1.5% each year, whereas the vacancies in the judiciary are over 20%. This is the cause for pendencies. A proper process with adequate resource must do this job.
Please recognize Justice Chelameswar’s signal contribution to our democracy, take this opportunity to bring transparency to the judiciary and accept that mistakes may be made in all fields. A democracy providing an equitable and fair nation will evolove, not by having infallible public servants, but by devising institutional mechanisms which will correct the foibles of men. We have lost the balance of the checks and balances designed by our constitution. I beseech you Sir, for the sake of our nation let us restore it with your authority and wisdom.
Yours truly ,
Shailesh Gandhi  ,
Former Central Information Commissioner

 PIL  -  Ye  Judges  You  , everyone of us  inferior  subservient  to  CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 
Accountability  of  Judges  a  MUST




editor  ,  SOS e  Clarion  of   Dalit  &  SOS  e  Voice  for  Justice ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 , HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State



Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others




To ,

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.


1. Facts of the case:
Our  whole hearted respects  to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to  honest efforts of those few  noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.
A .  "Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants & Judges. Some of the below mentioned judges fall among the category of churchill’s men – Rogues , Rascals & Freebooters.
B . As per the preamble of the  constitution of  India all the people , all Indian  citizens  are  equal in every respect , equally  entitled to justice , equally responsible to uphold constitution .  Only People , Citizens of India are supreme  No Judges  , No Ministers , etc are supreme. Judges , ministers , president  etc are  all  public servants constitutionally mandated to SERVE  the public , NOT  to master over them. Even after 69 years of independence  these judges , ministers have not come out of colonial hangover instead become worse treating  general public   as their servants.
C . Every institution in india is directly or indirectly  accountable to  people , however judiciary  alone  is  not transparent not giving accounts of it’s actions to people.
D . Judges enjoy 5 star pay & perks , making merry at the cost of people’s money , public exchequer  , but are not giving accounts of their actions  to people , not transparent to the public eye. They are not even honouring RTI applications seeking information about  actions of judges , because  corrupt judges will be caught  red handed.
E . Judges are not super humans nor super brains nor from moon or mars , they are ordinary mortals from the society around us and just like us capable of doing  good work  as well  falling prey to human lures like bribe , corruption , favoritism , etc.
F. Judges think they are sole custodians of constitution of india , in fact every citizen of india is a custodian of constitution of india.
G . Collegium of judges  is nothing but a coterie , a MAFIA  proof -   unfit corrupt persons like dinakaran , another judge involved in mysore roost resort sex scandal  being  selected by SCI  collegium  promoted to the  apex court. It is just the tip of iceberg , behind the judicial veil of secrecy many  corrupt judges are hiding. Hereby , I challenge Honourable supreme court of india  that subject to  conditions  I will bring to book corrupt judges who are hiding behind the veil. Are you ready ?
H . When compared to some corrupt judges  who are nothing but criminals , a drain , parasites on our public exchequer , society ,  the child workers who are hard working earning less than rupees 32 a day  are  far better , great human beings.
I . Ofcourse  when the court identifies  that intentions of  an act of parliament as unconstitutional , it has the right to strike it down to uphold the supremacy of  constitution. NJAC  Act passed by  parliament was in fact  filling a legal vaccum about accountability & selection of judges and in turn strengthening the constitution of india. But  by striking down NJAC Act of government of india , supreme court of india is weakening constitution of india , making contempt of parliament  , constitution & all Indian citizens. If at all  supreme court  was  really sincere it could have suggested more  alternatives for transparent , accountable  judiciary with  appropriate  transparent provisions for guarding judicial independence.
J . When  government of india passed unconstitutional acts like land acquisition bill , special status to Kashmir  , against uniform civil code promoted  unequal  differing civil laws for various religion people and  Bhopal gas victims act , nuclear energy act  , etc , did  it not dawn on supreme court of india that it is the sole custodian of constitution ? then why not SCI strike down those unconstitutional  parliamentary acts ?
K . It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights of every Indian citizens . Since 25 years  I am  appealing  to SCI  about  issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated  but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made ,  physically assaulted , livelihood  / jobs were  denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied ,  received threatening  calls , blank calls, even to date  rough elements follow us , rough elements  scout  near home at mid night. Does  not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI  Judges ?

L . Eventhough the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability. If at all information is not truly available , why didn’t the CPIO TRANSFER rti application to concerned departments of SCI , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High Courts , etc.

M .  Does not court administarative officer posess SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person who posess SR can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO not asking that person to share infor mation ?

N . If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for investigation to prosecute that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ? Is Judge’s MAFIA at play ?

O . The action of CPIO SCI amounts to cover up of judges & their crimes. Thereby , CPIO is also committing a crime. With respect to previous RTI Appeals also CPIO & RTI First Appellate Authority SCI have repeatedly committed crimes by covering up judges & their crimes. Billions of indians are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them / shame to JUDGEs that they draw pay & perks amounting to lakhs of rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their constitutional duties properly.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Are Judges above Law & can go scot free ? Can judges cheat  , rape , swindle  others and go scot free without legal prosecution ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , free expression & protection to life & liberty. Transparency , accountability in selection  & functioning of Judges.

4. Averment:



Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System , ,

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND ,

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up ,


JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice ,

RTI & Land Golmaal , , ,

Why  NOT  3rd  degree  Torture  of  Corrupt  Doctors , Police &  Judges

Hereby , we do request CPIO O/O Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India , New Delhi to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security , National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police. Judges are not superior human beings , some of them have even became judges through devious means other than merit , integrity. Judges are public servants drawing salary & perks from public exchequer and accountable to public as any other common man is.

We salute our freedom fighters , military personnel & martyrs for all the sacrifices made by them. Let us build a strong , Secular , Democratic India by getting rid off few corrupt elements , anti nationals , traitors among public servants , among judiciary & among police who are greater threat to India’s unity & integrity than Pakistani terrorists or chinese military.

Information input forms part of process of one’s expression. One’s expression in any forms – written , oral , etc becomes information input to the opposite person , in turn he expresses his reply. Information & Expression are inseparable parts & form lifeline of a democracy. That is the reason , Right to Expression is the basic fundamental right as well as human right of every Indian citizen. When a person’s right to expression is violated , his other rights to equality , justice , etc also are violated. Suppression of Information amounts to curbing of Expression.

In a democracy , people have a right to know how the public servants are functioning. However till date public servants are hiding behind the veil of Officials Secrets Act (which is of british vintage created by british to suppress native indians). By this cover-up public servants are hiding their own corruption , crimes , mismanagement , failures , etc. even RTI Act is not being followed intoto by public servants. However the recent delhi high court ruling affirming that CJI is under RTI purview & bound to answer RTI request , is noteworthy.

Our previous RTI request to CJI , union home secretary of GOI, President of India , DG & IGP of GOK and others were not honored. The information I sought were answers to the following questions mentioned in the below mentioned websites . the questions concerned the past , present continuing injustices meted out to millions of Indian citizens , due to wrong / illegal work practices of Indian judges , police & public servants . The information we sought would expose the traitors , anti-nationals , criminals in public service. The information we are seeking are no defense secrets , no national secrets. The truthful information exposes the anti-nationals , traitors in the public service & strengthens our national security , national unity & integrity.

Hereby , i do request the honourable supreme court of india , for a Supreme Court monitored CBI Enquiry into this whole issue as karnataka police are helpless , they don't have legal powers to prosecute high & mighty , constitutional functionaries. They have not even enquired the guilty VVIPs even once however Under pressure from higher-ups they repeatedly called me the complainant to police station took statements from me all for closing the files.

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.


In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
(ii) Hereby , I do request  the honourble supreme court of india to make public all   the proceedings of supreme court collegiums and correspondence between SCI , President’s office & government of india  regarding selection of judges. To make public  all the eligibility criteria followed for selection of judges  and who filled what criteria , who didn’t fill which criteria and the final ranking.
(iii) Hereby , I do request  the honourble supreme court of india  to uphold the constitution of india and to protect the constitutional rights of all Indian citizens including mine.

(iv) to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.


Date : 23rd  October  2015………………………………Filed By : Nagaraja.M.R.

Place : Mysuru India……………………………………Petitioner in person

RTI   Appeals  Not  Answered   by  SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA  - Crimes  Cover-up

To ,
RTI  Appellate  Authority ,
O/O Chief Justice of  India ,
Supreme Court of India ,
New Delhi.


 "Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts.  They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the  forewarning of  Late Winston Churchill  has been proved right by  some of our  criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants &  Judges.  Some of the below  mentioned  judges  fall among the category of churchill’s men –  Rogues  , Rascals & Freebooters.
 Eventhough  the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability.  If at all information is not truly available , why didn’t the   CPIO  TRANSFER rti  application to concerned departments of SCI  , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High Courts , etc.
Does not court administarative officer  posess  SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person  who posess SR  can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO not asking that person to share infor mation ?
If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for investigation to  prosecute  that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ? Is  Judge’s  MAFIA  at play ?
The  action  of  CPIO  SCI  amounts  to cover up  of judges & their crimes. Thereby  , CPIO  is also committing  a crime. With respect  to previous RTI Appeals  also  CPIO & RTI  First Appellate Authority  SCI  have repeatedly  committed  crimes  by  covering up  judges & their crimes.  Billions of indians  are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them  / shame to JUDGEs that they  draw  pay  &  perks  amounting to lakhs of rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their  constitutional duties properly.
 Atrocities on  Women  by  JUDGES
   A – Z   of   Manipulation  of  Indian  Legal  System
 Justice  Sathasivam -  Are  you  DEAF  DUMB  &  BLIND
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up
JUDGEs  or  Brokers  of  Justice
 RTI  &  Land  Golmaal
 Hereby ,  we  do request  CPIO  O/O  Honourable Chief Justice of India  , Supreme Court  of India , New Delhi  to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security ,  National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police. Judges are not superior human beings , some of them have even became judges through devious means other than merit , integrity. Judges  are public servants drawing salary & perks from public exchequer  and accountable to public as any other  common man  is.
Please give following  information  :
Main  A :
1.    Please give me The address  of salary disbursing officer in supreme court of india. Salary disbursing officer will be maintaining service records  of all employees of supreme court of india including judges. These records are used for disciplinary action , promotion , transfer of judges. If not within SCI , please give the address of the  outside public  official who maintains  service records of supreme court  judges and kindly compile  information from him and give it to me  orelse  transfer my RTI application to him.
2.    Please give me the list of serving as well as retired supreme court judges with allegations against them and the action taken thereof. Reasons for taking action / criminal prosecution  or not taking action.
3.    Please give me the list of serving as well as retired  high  court judges with allegations against them and the action taken thereof. Reasons for taking action / criminal prosecution  or not taking action.
4.    Please give me the list of serving as well as retired  district & taluk  court judges with allegations against them and the action taken thereof. Reasons for taking action / criminal prosecution  or not taking action.
5.    Some of the high courts are demanding higher RTI application fees  than stipulated by law. Eventhough  requisite fees  has been paid  before transfer of RTI application to high courts. Please give me the details of action taken by supreme court of india  against erring high courts.
6.    Give me the List of petitions  with date  made by Shri . Nagaraja Mysore Raghupathi alias Nagaraja M R  TO SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH POST , THROUGH E-MAIL & THROUGH   website  of  DPG / DARPG.  Action taken or not taken with reasons thereof with respect to each petition.
7.    Please give me list of actions , follow up actions taken by supreme  court of india , to safe guard the  HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS of  Nagaraja M R editor of SOS e Clarion of Dalit  & SOS e Voice for justice. He repeatedly  appealed to SCI  highlighting  violations of his human rights & fundamental rights. After appealing to SCI only  editor Nagaraja M R suffered more injustices , attempts on his life , etc  , may  be JUDGE’s MAFIA  is in deal with outside MAFIA. Police are helpless & practically don’t have  power to question supreme court judges & other VVIPs. Did SCI constitute SCI monitored enquiry committee  with full legal authority to look into the issue.  
8.    Judges preach too much & practice less. They give  lectures , judgements   running into hundreds  of pages  eliciting legality, moral virtues , humanity , etc.  But cover up information leading to crimes / accountability of judges.  The judges  committee  like a mafia deals it within  without subjecting the accussed judge to public scrutiny & public trial. It is almost similar to a  whore / bitch  giving a lecture on virginity  to women.  To refresh your memory  , Please  go through following websites  to  know about facts , actual cases of  crimes by judges. Please give us information  regarding action taken or not taken with reasons there of  with respect to each case mentioned in the  following websites:

9.    Please give me the list of actions , follow up actions taken by supreme court of india to safeguard the human rights of prisoners  , witnesses & evidences .
10.  Please give me the list of actions , follow up actions taken by  high courts  of  india  to safeguard the human rights of prisoners  , witnesses & evidences .
11.  Please give me the list of supreme court judges , high court judges & district / taluk judges  (both serving & retired) who received favourable allotment of sites , etc  which is nothing but a form of kick back  for favours  shown by judge. Please give me the list of action taken or not taken  by supreme court of india  with reasons  thereof  in each case.
12.  Please give me the list of action taken against  by supreme court of india  against  CPIO &  PIO  of supreme court of india  , who repeatedly failed to give  me information . thereby , CPIO & PIO are covering up crimes of guilty judges , violating RTI Act & violating human rights / fundamental rights of editor Nagaraja M R together with public.

Main  B :
 1 . How many judges are booked for graft , sexual crimes , crimes against women , irregularities , amassing disproportionate wealth , failure of duty , getting illegal allotment of sites & other crimes since independence till date , yearwise ?
2. what action taken casewise ?
3. are the action taken similar to commoners , common people committing same type of crimes ?
4. did all the cases handled by tainted judges subjected to review , retrial by other honest judges ?
5. how many advocates were prosecuted by court for influencing witnesses / evidences , for tutored / concocted evidences , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ?  if not why ?
6. how many police officials / law enforcing officials were prosecuted by court for influencing , intimidating witnesses through threats , 3rddegree torture , for concocted evidences , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?
7. how many police / law enforcement officials  were prosecuted for lock-up deaths , fake encounters , illegal detention , 3rd degree torture , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what  action ? if not why ?
8. in how many cases police / law enforcement officials were made to pay compensation to innocent victims who were wrongly charged , detained & tortured , murdered by police , since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?
9. in some cases , on appeal judgements of higher court  turns down the judgement of lower court. In how many such cases , lower court judge is made to pay compensation  to victims of their wrong judgement , since independence till date  yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?
10. how many judges have defaulted in filing their annual  financial returns giving out their wealth , income details , yearwise since  independence till date ? what action ? if not why ?
11. how you are verifying the annual financial returns of judges ?
12. since independence , how many convicts have been sentenced to “death by hanging” , yearwise ?
13. how many death sentances were carried out & how many are pending ?
14. how many police officials were made to pay compensation  & prosecuted for defamation , when innocents falsely charged by police were acquitted , dropped from charges by courts ? if not why ?
15. how many lower court judges were made to pay compensation & prosecuted for defamation , when innocents  wrongly convicted by lower court , but on appeal higher courts acquitting , dropping them of charges ? if not why ?
16. are judges getting paid from public exchequer , for their expenses on liquor / alcohol , body massages , etc in their  TA  DA  bill  while on  tour , official visits , official parties hosted by judges ?
17. how many appeals for justice concerning public welfare , violation of human & fundamental rights , threat to lives / livelihood , etc  were made to supreme court of india , by nagaraja mysore raghupathi alias nagaraja M R alias myself since 1990 till date ? appeals were made through ordinary post , registered post , e-mail & by web through DARPG , DPG. What  ACTION taken by supreme court of india with  respect to each appeal ?
18.  due to negligence / connivance of supreme court judges injustices were meted out to  public & public are still suffering injustices. Crimes which could have been prevented by SC happened eventhough brought to early notice of supreme court. What action against erring SC Judges ? if not why ?
19. I have repeatedly offered my services to supreme court of india , to apprehend criminals  within  judiciary , police & public service. What action taken by supreme court of india ? if not why ?
20. in my legal struggle for justice , due to negligence / connivance of SCI  judges  I have suffered murder attempts on my life , job losses , my newspaper closed , not getting press accreditation to my web news papers , threats by rowdies , police , etc. what action against erring chief justice of india ? if not why ?
21. I repeatedly appealed to supreme court of india to permit me to appear as amicus curie before supreme court of india   & jain commission of enquiry  regarding late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. I was not permitted why ?
22. who are the judges covering-up Rajiv Gandhi assassination case ? what action taken ? if not why ?
23. Law is one & same for all , but law enforcement  & law interpretation  is not same  for common people , Judges  & Police ? why ?

I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police , revenue officials , District Magistrate  & Chief Justice of India together with above mentioned accused public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges ,  police file fake cases against me or my dependents  to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward like hit & run cases , murder attempts , unnatural deaths , etc  happens to me or to my dependents   or to my family members    - In such case Chief Justice of  India together with the jurisdictional  revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india  is liable to pay Rs. TWO  crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , guilty Judges , guilty public servants &  guilty Constitutional functionaries.  


CPIO ,  o/o  Chief Justice of India , SUPREME  COURT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI.

FEES PAID : IPO  16G  733465  for rupees TWENTY only

DATE :  28.03.2015 ……………..………………………NAGARAJA.M.R.


RTI   Appeals  Not  Answered   by  SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA  - Crimes  Cover-up

To ,
RTI  Appellate  Authority ,
O/O Chief Justice of  India ,
Supreme Court of India ,
New Delhi.



"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts.  They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the  forewarning of  Late Winston Churchill  has been proved right by  some of our  criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants &  Judges.  Some of the below  mentioned  judges  fall among the category of churchill’s men –  Rogues  , Rascals & Freebooters.
 Eventhough  the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability.  If at all information is not truly available , why didn’t the   CPIO  TRANSFER rti  application to concerned departments of SCI  , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High Courts , etc.
Does not court administarative officer  posess  SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person  who posess SR  can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO not asking that person to share infor mation ?
If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for investigation to  prosecute  that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ?
The  action  of  CPIO  SCI  amounts  to cover up  of judges & their crimes. Thereby  , CPIO  is also committing  a crime. With respect  to previous RTI Appeals  also  CPIO & RTI  First Appellate Authority  SCI  have repeatedly  committed  crimes  by  covering up  judges & their crimes.  Billions of indians  are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them  / shame to JUDGEs that they  draw  pay  &  perks  amounting to lakhs of rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their  constitutional duties properly.
 At the outset , we express  our whole hearted respects to the honest few  public servants in public service including judiciary. However, the corrupt in public service don’t deserve  respect as individuals – as they are  parasites in our legal system. Still we respect the chairs they occupy but not the corrupt individuals.
 All the following articles / issues , whole articles published in the weblinks mentioned below forms part of this appeal. The term “JUDGE”mentioned throught includes all public servants  discharging  judicial functions right from taluk magistrates , quasi-judicial officers to Chief Justice of India.
 Indian Legal / Judicial System is manipulated at various stages & is for sale. It is a SHAME. The persons who raise  their voice seeking justice  are silenced in many ways. The criminal nexus has already attempted to silence me in many ways . If anything untoward happens to me or to my family members , my dependents , Honourable Chief Justice of India together with jurisdictional police officer will be responsible  for it.
 Hereby, we do once again offer our conditional services to the honourable supreme court of India & other government authorities, in apprehending criminals including corrupt judges & police. Herewith  , we once  again  appeal to the honourable supreme court of India , to consider this as a PIL Appeal in public interest.
 The public servants & the government must be role models in law  abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacherif the  teacher himself makes a mistake , all  his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught  , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot- free under his patronage.  even if a police , public  servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the  aggrieved. just think , if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land itself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional  rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from  performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ? it  gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals  in public service to committ more crimes. that is exactly what is  happenning in india. the educated public must raise to the occassion &  peacefully , democratically  must oppose this criminalisation of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF  MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.

Kindly go through the following articles & provide justice by giving complete truthful information to us , by publicly answering the following questionnaire in an unambiguous  manner.
 The constitution of India has prescribed certain FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES to each citizens of India. It is the duty of every citizen to protect & uphold the dignity , honour of our democratic institutions , to
protect our national integrity , to respect & protect the rights of our fellow citizens. No constitutional authority has  the right to obstruct the discharge of these duties by citizens of India. No legal  privileges of constitutional functionaries is superior over the  FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES OF CITIZEN'S OF INDIA.
We need rights to perform our duties. Constitution of India has guaranteed those rights as FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS to all citizens of India & by birth itself everyone of us has secured HUMAN RIGHTS as individuals. To express ourselves , we need information , data feed  back , to ascertain whether we are getting equal opportunity , whether  we are getting equitable justice , etc , we need information . so ,
basically Right To Information  is an inalienable part of our  fundamental rights & human rights. What RTI Act has done is fixed time  limit , responsibilities of public servants up to  certain extent. However the citizen's fundamental right & human right to seek  information extends far beyond the scope of RTI Act.
Hereby , we seek complete  truthful information from supreme court of India , with respect to my RTI application appeal. HEREBY , WE ARE  ONLY SEEKING ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS  IN PUBLIC INTEREST &  JUSTICE. Hereby ,  we request you to register this appeal as a PIL  petition & to ascertain the stand of apex court on various matters  raised in my RTI Application , in public interest & equitable justice.
 Atrocities on  Women  by  JUDGES
   A – Z   of   Manipulation  of  Indian  Legal  System
Justice  Sathasivam -  Are  you  DEAF  DUMB  &  BLIND
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up
 Hereby ,  we  do request  PIO O/O  Honourable Chief Justice of India  , PIO , O/O H.E.Honorable President of India , PIO O/O Honorable Speaker of Lok Sabha , PIO O/O Dy Chairman of Rajya Sabha , PIOs of  Karnataka Raj Bhawan , Karnataka CMO , Union Home Ministry GOI  and  DG & IG of Police of Government of Karnataka to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security ,  National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police.
Main  A :
1.      What  action you have taken against judges involved in atrocities against women , casewise ? if not, why ?
2.      What action you have taken against judges involved in land scams , casewise ? if not , why ?
3.      I have shown with actual cases  how manipulation / fixing takes place , from  complaint filing to judicial pronouncement stage. Are the judges & police , above law ?
4.      I have numerous PILs , RTI appeals  before supreme court of india. But they were  not registered , not honoured , why ?
5.      To my  legal notice / show cause notice / damage payment notice to supreme court of india & chief justice of india , till date I have not received the reply , why ?
6.      Is it not the duty of supreme court of india to protect the life & liberty of all Indian citizens ?
7.      Is it not the failure of supreme court of india, when it failed to protect the life of  a complainant ?
8.      By negligence of their duties , are not supreme court judges  aiding & abetting  criminals , anti nationals & terrorists ?
9.      While crores of Indians are barely surviving  on a single piece meal a day , people dying due to starvation , supreme  court judges are getting salary & perks amounting to lakhs of rupees  from the same suffering public / public exchequer. Are not those  duty shirking judges  ashamed ?
10.   What action you have taken against judges involved in hushing up late prime minister rajiv Gandhi assassination  case ?
11.  Why the supreme court of india didn’t allow me to appear before it  in the said case of  late PM Rajiv Gandhi Assassination  Case ?
12.  Why  the supreme court of india didn’t protect my life , my job oppurtunities , my newspaper  from the wrath of criminal  nexus ?
13.  When  even cable TV  journalists , web journalists are getting PRESS / MEDIA accreditation , my web news papers , myself are not getting  PRESS accreditation since 9 years , why ?
14.  Are the supreme court  judges  hand in gloves with the criminal nexus ?
Main  B :
You have not taken appropriate action to my previous RTI requests , Numerous appeals for justice & police complaints. You have not replied to show-cause notice also. Your inaction has helped the criminals in manipulating & destroying evidences.
Your inaction / delay in performing your duties not only amounts to denial of information , but  amounts to violation of our fundamental & human rights , cover-up of crimes , aiding & abetting criminals . The criminal nexus tried to silence me in many ways. Is not these acts of your’s  a crime in itself ?
If your acts of crime cover-ups  , information / evidence cover-ups , aiding & abetting criminals , silencing a crusader  is just & legal. The same type of acts of crimes  performed by other citizens will also be legal ?
Main  C :
At the outset , we express our whole hearted respects to all constitutional institutions &  to the honest few in public service. Contempt of constitutional institutions , citizens of India is being made by the corrupt persons in constitutional positions themselves. This is an appeal to the honest few in public service , constitutional positions , to bring their corrupt colleagues to book.
1.                  does the action of MPs , MLAs taking money / receiving favors from vested interests , to formulate policy decisions , to raise questions in parliament / legislative bodies or to abstain from voting  legal ?
2.                  why transparent , fair investigation is not done in such cases ?
3.                  just remember , the  vulgar acts of Mr.Bora Babu Singh in state legislature & how some  MLAs   vulgarly behaved with Ms.Jayalalita  in state legislature , years ago. Are these type of vulgar actions by MPs & MLAs  legal ? does not these constitute contempt of the house by MPs & MLAs themselves ?
4.                  all the people’s representatives from panchayath member to president of India must read ABCD  Of Democracy  provide along with.since independence of India till date , MPs & MLAs are forcing projects on people against the wishes of people , formulating policies against the wishes of people. Are not such projects , government policies & Laws , undemocratic & illegal ?
5.                  is the election commission of India verifying the authenticity of affidavits submitted by electoral candidates ?
6.                  how many candidates have been caught so far for giving false affidavits ? are all the violators prosecuted?
7.                  are the MPs , MLAs submitting their wealth details on affidavits yearly to vigilance authorities ? defaulters , violators how many ?
8.                  what legal action taken against violators , defaulters , for giving false affidavits ?
9.                  who is checking the authenticity of those affidavits submitted by MPs , MLAs ?
10.              the agricultural incomes of some MPs , MLAs , their kih & kin raises even during the time of severe drought , floods , fall in prices of agricultural products , their companies register increase in turnover / profits even during recession , the trusts / NGOs set up by them receive huge donations. Are all these income legal ?
 Main  D :
1.                  we do once again offer  our conditional services to the government of india , all state governments & supreme court of india , in apprehending  tax evaders , land grabbers , corrupt police , corrupt judges , corrupt  public servants , labor law violators , etc. whom the the government officials , vigilance authorities have failed to apprehend. Why the authorities , courts , supreme court of India , are not ready  to utilize our service ? are they afraid of being caught ?
2.                  the public servants , courts theselves are delaying giving information / records to us in many cases. So in the issues / cases raised by us , the clause of time bar doe not apply. Are these delaying tactics of public servants , courts legal ?
3.                  why no proper , timely action was not taken based on numerous police complaints made by us ?
4.                  why DG & IGP , Government of Karnataka , has not made any efforts to seek legal sanction for prosecution of VVIPs ( mentioned in our complaint ) , from union & state home ministries ?
5.                  the criminal nexus is trying to silence me in many ways , but the supreme court of India & national human rights  commission  has failed to undo the injustices , why ? is it because it is not a high profile case  ? is it because it  is not hi-fi , does not get image ratings , TRPs ?
6.                  the public servants are aiding underworld , naxalites & terrorists , by their delaying tactics & denial of information , records. What action has been taken against such anti-national elements in public service ?
7.                  how many complaints are made by Nagaraj .M.R. , Human Rights Activist , Mysore (editor of SOS e-clarion of dalit & SOS e-voice for justice) to Karnataka police , to national human rights commission  to supreme court of India till date ? what action taken with respect to each complaint ?
8.                  the delay in taking action by public servants  with respect to following cases has resulted in  more crimes , destruction / manipulation of evidences , records  and more injustices to commonman. Why the authorities did not take timely action against criminals in following cases ?
INDIA -  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,
are you ready to catch tax thieves ?  ,  ,
reliance industry where is accountability ?  ,  ,
crimes at infosys campus  ,  ,
crimes by B.D.A against a poor woman  ,  ,
crimes of land mafia in India  ,   ,
currency thefts in RBI Press  ,  ,
killer colas & killer medicines of India  ,  ,
Persecuted IROM SHARMILA of Puttaparthi AP – pushpa kolasani  on hunger strike in anantapur  district jail Andhra Pradesh
9.                  how many judges are caught by authorities for doing improper , immoral & illegal acts , since independence till date ? what action taken in each case ?
10.              what action taken against copy cat judges caught red handed while copying in public examination in Andhra Pradesh ?
11.              have you reviewed all the previous judicial decisions  taken by such judges of doubtful integrity & honesty ?
12.              is it not the duty of government & supreme court of India , to protect  the fundamental rights & human rights of all Indian citizens ?
13.              why the government & supreme court of India has failed to protect the fundamental rights & human rights of  me  & those mentioned in my complaint ?
14.              how many former CJIs  ,  supreme court & high court judges have disproportionate wealth ?
15.              Your denial of information to my previous RTI requests  amounts to suppression of evidence , hiding crimes , what action against erring public servants ?
16.              why my previous RTI requests or part  there of was not transferred to appropriate authorities and information given to me in a consolidated form ?

Main   E  :
Q1. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who murder people in in lock-up / fake encounters ?
Q2. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who apply 3rd degree torture on prisoners ?
Q3. Why not death sentence to corrupt police , who connive with criminals & backstabs our motherland , it’s national security ?
Q4. Don’t the police have suo-motto powers to take action in the interest of public welfare , law & order ?
Q5. Daily we see numerous reports of misdeeds by police , public servants , industrialists , etc in the media . Then why not police taking any action with respect to them ?
Q6. nowadays we see numerous reports of scams , scandals by constitutional functionaries , public servants in the media. Instead of wasting money , killing time by prolonging formation of parliamentary committees , judicial commissions , why not subject those accussed public servants to narco analysis , lie deector test , etc to ascertain truth & provide timely justice ?
Q7. If a commonman files a complaint , police / courts wants evidences , witnesses to take action against the rich & mighty crooks. Where as if a rich person just gives a complaint against a poor chap , he is arrested , tortured eventhough there are no evidences , witnesses. Why this double standard ?
Q8. If a poor chap tries to collect evidences as per his fundamental rights or as per RTI ACT , the public servants don’t give full , truthfull information. Still , police / courts don’t take action against those public servants hiding crimes. Why ?
Q9.why I was not permitted to appear as an “amicus curie” before jain commission of enquiry or supreme court of india probing late prime minister rajiv Gandhi assassination case ?
Q10. The criminal nexus tried to silence me , by closing my news paper , by snatching away my job oppurtunities in government service, by physically assaulting me , by threatening me of false fix-ups in cases & by attempts to murder me. But no action against culprits , why ?
Q11. Whereas , I was enquired number of times by police & intelligence personnel about this case , but the culprits were not enquired even once , why ?
Q12.who compensates the losses I have suffered due to these injustices ? are not police responsible for it ?
Q13. Is it not the duty of police to protect the lives , livelihood of witnesses & all parties involved , both during case & afterwards ?
Q14. How do you monitor & check corrupt police personnel & increase in their family’s wealth year after year ?
Q15. While getting appointed into government service from the rank of peon to IAS officer , police verification is mandatory. While appointing to sensitive defense establishments , research institutes in addition to police verification , central intelligence agencies cross-check candidate’s background. However is there no background checks of constitutional functionaries , MPs , MLAs , , who are privy to national secrets ? why ?
Q16. Recently , the opposition parties have made allegations during presidential allegations that close relative of one of the front running candidates have swindled public money by their bank , misused public money through one of their NGO. Is it true ?
Q17.has GOI funded any terrorist outfits in india or abroad ?
Q18.india preaches non-violence , panchasheel principles to the world. In india , more than half the population are poor , people are starving to death. Inspite these background , GOI funded & aided terrorist outfits in former east Pakistan ensuring the creation of Bangladesh , GOI has funded & aided terrorist outfits like LTTE , TULF , ETC in srilanka , MQM in Pakistan. In turn these terrorist outfits have murdered thousands of innocents in those countries. Are these acts of GOI just & legal ? Is not GOI responsible for all those murders of innocents ? has GOI paid any compensation to those victims or their family mebers ? why not ?
Q19.within india , to reduce the influence of certain terrorist groups , GOI has funded & aided couter terrorist groups , is it right & legal ?
Q20. In Jharkhand , chattisgarh , etc , the government has armed , trained & funded “salwa judum” to counter naxalites. Salwa judum cadres are terrorizing innocents just like naxalites. Is this action of government just & legal ? india, TADA , POTA is being rampantly misused by police. Even where there are no problems of terrorism , TADA / POTA is being slapped against innocents , even children. In M.M.Hills of Karnataka state , STF personnel charged tribal people with TADA on frivolous charges of taking lunch to veerappan , stiching dress for the forest brigand, etc. where as the prominent political, film , sports personalities who have links with underworld , anti national elements & attended parties hosted by dawood Ibrahim , other dons in gulf countries , else where. But these hi-fi people are not charged with TADA / POTA ? why ?
Q22. Film actor sanjay dutt had contacts with underworld & fully knowing well the criminal objectives of criminals , hid the dangerous arms & ammunition in his home , which were intended for terrorizing public. However mr.dutt is not charged with TADA / POTA instead he is charged with illegal possession of arms act ( which is normally applied to farmers who use illegal home made guns to scare away animals , birds in their farms ). Why this favourable treatment of mr.dutt by police ? prosecution ? is this because dutt is politically mighty & rich ?
Q23. Law is one & same for all , the public servants, police interpretes , enforces it differentially between rich & poor ? why this differentiation ?
Q24.recently in Bangalore police nabbed criminals belonging to international criminal syndicate selling duplicate nokia mobiles. Every nokia mobile comes with 15 digit IMEI number , this number is also used by police for tracking criminals. In consumer dispute at consumer disputes redressal forum Mysore CD 49/05 , nokia company stated that all it’s products come with IMEI number only & stated that the product in dispute sold by tata indicom dealer M/S INTOTO COMMUNICATIONS , Mysore are not their’s as it doesn’t have IMEI numbers. Further nokia stated they don’t have any business relationship with either tata indicom or it’s dealer. However the tata indicom dealer stated that indeed his products are genuine , first hand products , but doesn’t have IMEI numbers . this proves the dealer in collusion with tata company is selling illegal nokia mobile hand sets & cheating the public. These mobiles are evading taxes , as well as these are without IMEI numbers best buy for criminal elements who want to evade police tracking. What police are doing
Q25. Who , of which rank among police personnel takes the decision to close a case ie to file “B” report , when after certain time limit no leads are found in investigation ?
Q26. How do you monitor corrupt police personnel , who purposefully fail to investigate case properly , so that either the case can be closed with “B” report or the prosecution fails to prove the case in court ?
Q27. Who among police takes the decision to appeal against the verdict of a lower court , when the prosecution fails ?
Q28. Who took the decision , not to appeal against the argentina court order acquitting mr.quatrochi accussed in bofors scandal ?
Q29. Do you treat all the prison convicts same in the prison or does the notorious big time rich criminals get spacious barracks with tv, news paper , adequate food , medical care , etc while small time criminals , poor are crammed into pig sty like rooms with 60-70 inmates without any basic requirements ?
Q30. What is the status of my complaint made to the DG & IG of police , government of Karnataka on 10/12/2004 ? the copies of complaint was released at press meet at patrakartara bhavan Mysore on same day, even copies were given to police & intelligence personnel ?
Q31. Why no action , reply regarding the complaint till date ?
Q32. Our constitutional frame workers gave legal immunity privileges to certain constitutional functionaries , so that they are not burdened with frivolous court cases & can concentrate on their constitutional duties. But these privileges doesn’t cover the individual actions of those public servants like rape , murder , dowry harassment , tax evasion , misuse of office , etc. but still law enforcement / police department is bound to send request to home ministry seeking permission & home ministry sits over files for months. This gives the accussed ample time to destroy evidences. Is it right & legal ?
Q33. Does legal immunity privileges cover their official actions alone ? if not what does it cover ?
Q34. What is the time limit for home ministry to give sanction for the prosecution of tainted constitutional functionaries ?
Q35. How many present MPs , MLAs , MUNICIAPAL CORPORATORS , other people’s representatives are facing criminal charges ?
Q36. In the past , how many MPs , MLAs , corporators were facing criminal charges , yearwise since 1987 ? how many of them were eventually convicted ?
Q37. How many MPs , MLAs , prominent film , sports personalities have have contacts with underworld , foreign intelligence agencies ?
Q38. How many of them have attended frequent parties hosted by underworld dons in gulf countries , else where ?
Q39. How many MP , MLA , other people’s representatives are wanted by police in various cases . but shown in the police records as absconding but in reality are attending the proceedings of the house as usual ?
Q40. When did smt. Sonia Gandhi became a citizen of india ? did she occupy any public office before naturalization ?
Q41. In india , how many MPs , MLAs , MLCs are of foreign origin or have a spouse of foreign origin ?
Q42. Does smt. Sonia Gandhi have citizenship of any other country ?
Q43. Did she occupy any public office while enjoying dual citizenship ?
Q44. How do you monitor public servants who have spouses of foreign origin & while they are on foreign tour , from national security perspective ?
Q45. Is mr. M.S SUBBA member of parliament a citizen of india ?
Q46. What is the status of complaint made by former union minister mr.subramanya swamy alleging that late P.M rajiv gandhi’s family received money from foreign intelligence agencies ?
Q47. In many cases like mass riots involving certain political parties , when that culprit party comes to power all the cases involving it’s partymen are withdrawn by the government orelse prosecution fails to prove it’s case & prefers not to appeal. Just remember Bombay riot case involving shiv sainiks & others , when shiv sena – BJP came to power in Maharashtra , all the cases against it’s partymen were withdrawn. Are these type of decisions by government just & legal ?
Q48.what damages has been done to india’s national security due to mole in the PMO, as alleged by former union minister mr.natwar singh ?
Q49. What action by the government ?
Q50. How many Indians are in the custody of police / military in various foreign countries ?
Q51. How many foreigners are there in Indian prisons ?
Q52. How GOI is protecting the human rights of these prisoners ?
Q53. Is the government paying any compensation to victims of police failures , fix-ups , , who suffer in jail for years & acquitted by courts upon finding them as not guilty ?
Q54. Do you register murder charges / attempt to murder charges against guilty police officers who are responsible for lock-up deaths , fake encounters & 3rd degree torture ?
Q55. How many cases has been filed since 1987 till date ?
Q56. What action has been taken against guilty police officers , STF personnel who were responsible for gross human rights violations , 3rddegree torture , lock-up deaths of innocents in forest brigand veerappan’s territory , based on justice A.J.Sadashiva commission findings ? if not why ?
Q57. I , as a citizen of india as my “fundamental duty” hereby do offer my conditional services to GOI & GOK to apprehend corrupt public servants. Are you ready to utilize my services ?
Q58. Police personnel are always in the forefront of containing crimes , mass fury , riots , etc. they suffer more & even their family members suffer threats from the criminal elements. Do the government provide insurance coverage to police & their family members on the lines of defense forces ?
Q59. What is the amount of coverage to a police constable & his family ?
Q60. Who makes the premium contributions ?
Q61. Do the government provide overtime allowance , food allowance to police who daily work beyond 8 hours of duty ?
Q62. Is the government giving any training to police personnel in public interaction , human rights ?
Q63. Is it right to post professionally trained police to sentry , orderly duties of ministers ?
Q64. What is the ratio of police personnel to total population in india since 1987 ?
Q66. Is the forensic science department which conducts narcfo-analysis , lie-detector test , etc under the control of police department ?
Q67. Is it not right to put it under impartial control of NHRC or like bodies ?
Q68. Is the action of some police officers arranging compromise meetings & subtly insisting the poor to tow the line of rich or else face the consequences , is it right & legal ? this happens mostly in real estate matters.
Q69. Did government make any ransom payments to forest brigand veerappan during his various kidnappings ?
Q70. What action has been taken based on revealations by karim telgi during narco analysis about public servants involvement ?
Q71. How many cases of allegations against judges were made in the media about misuse of office , criminal acts by judges from munsiff court to supreme court of India ? since 1947 till date
Q72. are the enquiry report findings, action taken reports of such cases accessible to public ? if not why ?
Q73. what action has been taken against guilty judges ?
Q74. are the guilty judges legally prosecuted in all such cases ? or has it just ended with their resignation from services or his superior judge not allotting him any judicial work ?
Q75. why some high ranking judges are not legally prosecuted for their wrong doings ?
Q76. are judges above law ? are not everybody equal before law ?
Q77. do the judiciary subject , all the cases handled by accussed / tainted , guilty judges to review , to undo past unjust judgements ?
Q78. how ? if not why ?
Q79. how do the judiciary monitor the net wealth growth of some judges including the wealth in the name of judge’s family members ?
Q80. do all the judges file their annual income , wealth statements on sworn affidavits to the higher judiciary ? defaulters how many ?
Q81. how does the judiciary verifies those statements ?
Q82. is such statements made public , on web ?
Q83. when the judgement of a lower court is turned down by the higher court , what action is initiated against lower court judge for making unjust judgement & meating out injustice ?
Q84. when allegations of corruption , misuse of office , etc against judges are made , why the accussed – judges are not subjected to tests like “poly graph , lie detector , brain mapping , etc” , in the interest of justice & truth ?
Q85. judges are not employees of government , so they are ineligible to be the members of “Karnataka state government judicial department house building co-operative society”. Then how come , many judges including supreme court judges are admitted as members of this society & allotted prime residential site worth crores of rupees for a few thousands by the said society at said society’s – judicial layout , yelahanka , Bangalore ? while the ordinary members like peons , clerks in judicial department are waiting for a site since years , is not the whole thing grossly illegal ?
Q86. in more than 70% of cases before all courts in India , central government or state government or government agency is one of the parties. How many judges or their family members , have received out of turn , favourable allotments of sites , gas agency , petrol pumps , etc by the government ? is not such allotments illegal ? what action ?
Q87. when a person under police custody or judicial custody suffer 3rd degree torture by police , is not the judge of the respective court which is handling that tortured person’s case responsible for it ?
Q88. has the higher judiciary legally prosecuted respective judges & the police officers for committing 3rd degree torture , on charges of attempt to murder & murder ? if not why ?
Q89. registrar , Mysore district & sessions court , has called for the candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide notification no : ADMN/A/10825/2003 dated 19/11/2003. Please furnish me the merit ranking list of selected candidates along with my merit ranking for the post of peon.
Q90. registrar , Bangalore city civil court , has called for the candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide notification no : ADM-I(A)422/03 dated 19/05/2003. Please furnish me merit ranking list of selected candidates for the post of peon.
Q91. when a person doesn’t get adequate food , medical care while under police custody or judicial custody , is not the respective judge dealing that person’s case responsible for it ? what action ?
Q92. how judiciary is monitoring food & medical care to prisoners ?
Q93. numerous accussed persons are suffering in jail under judicial custody , for periods far exceeding the legally stipulated sentence periods. For example : a pick-pocketer is in jail for one year , the judge finds him guilty of offence & gives him 3 months sentence. What about the excess punishment of 9 months. Is not the judge responsible for the illegal , excess punishment of the convict ? what action against the judge in such cases ?
Q94. numerous innocents suffer in jail for years & finally the judge finds them as innocents & acquits them of the charges. What about the prison sentence , the innocent has already served ? is not the judge responsible for this illegal , unjust punishment to an innocent ? remedy ? what action against the judge ?
Q95. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions & the actions arising out of misuse of office ?
Q96. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions as judges & their personal actions as individuals ?
Q97. are the fundamental rights of citizens supreme or the privileges of judges , constitutional functionaries supreme ?
Q98. what is the criteria adopted for promotion of judges ?
Q99. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of advocates from bar , as the judges ?
Q100. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of retired judges , as governors of states , members or as chairman of commissions , etc ?
Q101. how many judges belonging to oppressed classes – scheduled caste , scheduled tribe , other backward classes , minorities & women are their in supreme court , state high courts & subordinate courts ? kindly provide specific figures .
Q102. what are the legal measures enforced by judiciary , to enforce the accountability of judges & to check corruption in judiciary ?
Q103. are not these measures a failure , looking at present state of affairs of judiciary ?
Q104. does the judges arrange for distribution of alchoholic drinks at the official meetings , parties , at the tax payer’s expense ?
Q105. does any judges have included their consumption of alchoholic drinks , in their hotel bill & claimed traveling allowance ?
Q106. what action has been taken against – selectors ie Karnataka high court judges & newly selected women judges involved in roost resort scandal in Mysore , Karnataka ?
Q107. when common people / tax payers & even government employees are not getting proper health care from government at government hospitals. Is it right & just to provide premium health care to judges , constitutional functionaries at 5-star private hospitals in India , abroad , all at tax payer’s expense ?
Q108. are the judges subjected to periodical health check-ups to ascertain their health , mental faculties & mental balance in the midst of all work pressures , emotional tensions ?
Q109. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary for accepting applications seeking public interest litigations ?
Q110. why numerous appeals for PIL by me , were not considered ?
Q111. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for appointing “amicus curie” in a case ?
Q112. why my appeal to honourable supreme court , to make me as an “amicus curie” in late P.M Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case , was not considered by the court ?
Q113. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for initiating suo-motto action ?
Q114. numerous cases of injustices are reported in the media daily , with supporting evidences . why not the judiciary take suo-motto action in all such cases ?
Q115. legal aid boards pre-judge the cases in the name of taking legal opinion , before providing legal aid to the needy ? is it not needy person’s rights violation ?
Q116. is not the safety of witnesses , parties in cases responsibility of the court , both during hearing of the case & afterwards ?
Q117. is the use of 3rd degree torture by police on prisoners , during the police custody / judicial custody / prison sentence right ? what action ?
Q118. when the corrupt police officer & government prosecution advocate together cover-up evidences , conducts improper investigation intentionally to fail the case – to cover-up rich crooks , high & mighty people , what action judge takes in such cases ?
Q119. how does the judiciary monitor the wealth growth of police , government advoctes , tax officials , officials of licensing authorities , to ensure proper & fair prosecution of cases against rich & mighty ?
Q120. what are the status of appeals made by human rights activist NAGARAJ.M.R. to the honourable supreme court of India ?
Q121. corruption is rampant for selection of officers to quasi-judicial positions like district / taluk magistrates , tax officers , revenue officers , land acquisition officers , etc. how the judiciary monitors over their quasi-judicial actions ?
Q122. subject to conditions , I , NAGARAJ.M.R. , editor , e-voice of human rights watch , do offer my free services to honourable supreme court of India , to apprehend corrupt judges , are you – the honourable court ready to utilize it ?
Q123. what are the status of my appeals , sent to the honourable supreme court of India , through government of india’s on-line grievance system ( DPG & DARPG ) :
DPG/M/2006/80008 , DARPG/E/2006/00057, DARPG/E/2006/00225 , DPG/M/2006/80021 , DARPG/E/2006/00253 , DPG/M/2006/80032 , DARPG/E/2006/01149 , DPG/M/2006/80047 , DARPG/E/2006/01164 , DPG/M/2006/80043 , DPG/M/2006/80085 , DARPG/E/2006/06704 , DARPG/E/2006/07017 , DARPG/E/2006/07018 , DPG/M/2006/80159 , DPG/M/2006/80162 , DARPG/E/2006/07864 , DPG/M/2006/80165 , DARPG/E/2006/07877 , DPG/M/2006/80167 , DARPG/E/2006/08028 , DARPG/E/2006/08029 , DARPG/E/2006/08032 , DARPG/E/2006/08043 , DARPG/E/2006/08044 , DPG/M/2006/80174 , DPG/M/2006/80193 , DARPG/E/2007/00044 , DPG/M/2007/80003 , DPG/M/2007/80010 , DARPG/E/2007/00164 , DARPG/E/2007/00165 , DPG/M/2007/80014 , DPG/M/2007/80025 , DPG/M/2007/80049 , DPG/M/2007/80055 , DPG/M/2007/80056 , DPG/M/2007/80078 , DPG/M/2007/80082 , DARPG/E/2007/02618
Q124. the appeals made to the honourable supreme court of India , copies of which are available at following web pages , , , , ,
what are the status of those appeals ?
Q125. in the media , we have seen reports about judges committing crimes – rape , attempt to murder , swindling government money , untouchability practice , the disrespect to national flag , sale of judicial orders , bail , receipt of monetary gains by way of royalty for books , prime real estate purchase at discounted rate , taking round about long foreign tours along with family in the name of official work , etc. by this way , judges themselves are making contempt of court , constitution of India & citizens of India. How you are protecting the honour of the judiciary , constitution of India & citizens of India ? please answer.
Q126. Is the government giving any facilities / affirmative actions to policemen’s family as being given to defense personnel , ex-servicemen & their families , like preferential site allotment , lpg agency , ration depot , reservation in college admission , soft bank loans , etc ?
Q126. if not , why ? after all , the contribution of police to national security is on par with defense forces.
Q127. is not some high police officials addressing their subordinates in singular term , abusing them with vulgar words wrong ?
Q128. is not some police personnel calling public with singular term, abusing public with vulgar words wrong ?
Q129. is it not the duty of prison authorities to protect the health, lives of prison in-mates ?
Q130.what action is taken against police personnel who wrongly charged an innocent person of criminal acts , resulting in his confinement in jail , finally acquitted by court as found to be innocent ?
Q131. is it not right to with hold salary , gratuity , pension to such guilty police personnel & pay it as compensation to victims of police failures & atrocities ?
Q132. does our Indian constitution legally permit a citizen of foreign origin naturalized by marriage to an Indian or naturalized by option , to occupy any constitutional office ?
Q133. during british rule in india & various other british colonies , criminal cases were foisted against our freedom fighters in India & other british colonies. After india’s independence what happened to those cases ? did our Indian government close all such cases or did it continue with the prosecution ?
Q134. in how many cases GOI & other state government continued with the prosecution AGAINST OUR FREEDOM FIGHTERS ? why ?
Q135. what about the status of cases against shri.netaji subash Chandra bose ?
Q136. has GOI deported any freedom fighters to Britain or it’s colonies , to face prosecution after India gained independence ? HAS GOI RECEIVED ANY REQUEST FROM BRITAIN TO THAT EFFECT ? if yes , why , whom ?
Q.137. the honourable supreme court of India failed provide information to me as per my RTI request appeal no : 91 / 2007 in response to your letter no : F1 / RTI / A.91 / 2007 dt 13.12.07 , why ?
Q138 . the honourable union home secretary failed to give me information as per my rti request , he transferred my application to others , in turn they transferred the application to some others. Finally , complete truthful information was not given , why ? as the union home secretary has got copies of all those replies in response to transferred RTI application , will he send me a consolidated reply to my present RTI request ?
Q139. in a high profile case before the honourable delhi high court , we have seen how defense advocate mr. R.S.ANAND & prosecution advocate mr. I.U.KHAN made a secret pact to win the case in favour of rich criminal , totally manipulating prosecution witnesses , evidences & prosecution stand , totally making mockery of justice system . how you are ensuring the delivery of justice , there being numerous such advocates in practice ?
Q140. Smt. Sonia Gandhi is person of foreign origin , she wields enormous clout more than the Prime Minister himself over the government of India being the chair person of UPA. Is she legally permitted to summon confidential official records , minutes of the cabinet , to hold the cabinet meeting of union ministers ?
Q141. As per law , is she permitted to hold constitutional offices like prime minister of India or president of India , etc ?
Q.142. What are the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under the constitution (Article 21) ?
Q143. What are the privileges conferred on legislators & parliamentarians by the constitution of India?
a) Inside the House b) Outside the House
Q144. What are privileges conferred on constitutional functionaries, like
a) President of India b) Prime Minister of India
c) Chief Justice of India d) Chairman of NHRC
e) Central Vigilance Commissioners.
Q145. Are the privileges legal immunity conferred on above mentioned constitutional functionaries ?
a) Cover all their official actions irrespective of merit.
b) Cover both their official & personal actions.
Q146. Are the privileges defined & codified ?
Q147. Are these privileges above freedom of the press ?
Q148. Are the liberty & fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the constitution, above the privileges of the constitutional functionaries or equal or below ?
Q149. Can the Indian legislatures & parliament be equated to the House of commons in England which is considered to be a superior court and court of records ?
Q150. Can the division of powers, namely the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary, be equated to the functioning of the House of commons and House of Lords in England ?
Q151. Can a citizen be said to have committed breach of privilege of the House or court and causing contempt of the house or court by raising the issues of accountability of constitutional functionaries ?
Q152. Can a Legislature or Parliament enact a new law, to circumvent or to nullify the Judicial orders with respect to wrongdoings by peoples representatives & executive ? does not it amount to infringement of Judicial powers & contempt of the court by the House.
Q153. Are the FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES of a citizen more important than constitutional duties of a constitutional functionary or equal in importance to it ?
Q154. Can a constitutional functionary commit crimes, anti-national activities in the name of constitutional duties, behind the legal veil of official’s secret act & go unaccountable for his actions and go unpunished by his legal immunity privileges
Q155. Are the Legislators members of parliament, High court & Supreme court Judges and other constitutional functionaries not willing to codify their privileges for the reason that if codified their privileges would be curtailed and their action would be subjected to legal scrutiny. ?
Q156. By votes of citizens Legislators and parliamentarians get seats in the legislature and Parliament out of tax payer’s money, they get their pay, perks & lead 5-Star luxurious lifestyles. Hence whether a vote of a citizen is above (More valid) or a seat of legislator or parliamentarian is above or more valid in a democracy ?
Q157. Judges & Constitutional functionaries are indirectly appointed by voters / tax payers. Out of tax payers money, they get their pay, perks & lead 5-star luxurious lifestyles. Hence, whether the vote of a citizen, fundamental duties of a tax payer is above (more valid) or a seat of judge / constitutional functionary is above (more
valid) in a democracy ?
Q158. If there is a vacuum in the Legislature or parliament, who is to fill up that vacuum till such time that the legislature or parliament acts provide a solution by performing its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field (vacuum) ?
Q159. While it is an unhealthy practice for a Judge to claim to be a Judge in his own cause, is it not worse for the members of the legislature and parliament to be judges in their own cause ?
Q160. Are the Technicalities of the case more important to a judge or Justice to a citizen, protection of fundamental rights of citizen.?
Q161. Why not the constitutional functionaries initiate suo moto action with respect to numerous cases of injustices reported in Media ?
Q162. Why not the Judges admit various cases of Injustices affecting public, as the Public Interest Litigation” ? In some cases, the Public or the person representing them is unable to afford the high cost of the case. Why not free legal aid is given ?.
Q163. What is the criteria for admitting a P.I.L. & giving free legal aid ?
Q164. Communication – free flow of information is the lifeline of a democracy. Why the constitutional functionaries are not honouring the Right to Information of Citizens ?
Q165. Recently , while assuming office as honourable chief justice of Karnataka , justice. P.D.DINAKAR , gave a blanket withdrawal of all internal departmental enquiries against approximately 200 judges , is it just & legal ? give me the names of accused judges & description of charges against them ?
Q166. does it not show that judges are more equal than others ?
Q167. who are involved in PF scam ? what action against guilty judges ?
Q168. Why you did not give information to me as per RTI Act inspite of appeal ? refer. F1/RTI/A91/2007.
Q169. Almost a year ago , in the Karnataka state new chief justice of Karnataka high court honble Mr.Dinakar (now elevated to supreme court of India) just on assuming offices within hours scrapped disciplinary inquiry proceedings against 200+ erring judges. In such a short time no human being can study all the cases in detail , then how come he arrived at this vital decision in such short time? Who are those 200+ judges facing enquiry ?
Q170 .Recently in the Karnataka state , high court found out that a district judge without conducting hearings properly , entering fictious dates of hearings (which happens to be government holidays ) facilitated in exonerating a top politician . has the court enquired into the previous judgements of the accussed judge ? did it find any wrongdoings?
Q171. As per law , while on duty a person should not be drunk , under the influence of alchohol , as it limits the functioning of his senses & brain. That is why the acts & sayings of drunkards , committed / said when they are drunk are not taken seriously. However most of the police officers after evening hours are drunk , in that state only they apprehend many suspects & produce those suspects at the residences of magistrates before magistrate during wee hours / night. Some of of the judges are also drunk during that time. Does the senses of drunken police & judges work properly to do their respective duties in identifying criminals , apprehending them & to issue judicial orders. Are these actions of police & judges in drunken state legal ?
Q 172 . What action  has been taken in bhopal gas leak case against the guilty police officials who changed the charge sheet against union carbide officials ?
Q 173 . What action has been taken against guilty police officials , district magistrate , state ministers & central ministers who fully aided the criminals – Union Carbide official  Mr. Anderson to escape law , to jump bail  & flee the country without court’s permission ?
Q 174 . What action has been taken against the above said guilty with respect to their contempt of court  & for aiding a criminal to escape ?
Q 175. What action has been taken against the chief justice of India , who changed the legal clause under which the guilty should be tried ?  what action has been taken against the CJI who  became an official of the  trust belonging to the criminal ?
Q 176 . What action has been taken against the Indian Public servant who decided to withdraw cases from US Courts with respect to Bhopal gas tragedy ?
Q 177 . What action has been taken against the state labour department & pollution control board officials who have failed in their duties , inspite of earlier warnings by journalists ?
Q 178 . What action has been taken against state cabinet ministers who decided the quantum of compensation money to favour the criminal although they don’t have right to do so ?
Q 179 . What action has been taken against Presiding Judge of the trial court , Chief Justice of India , state police officials , public prosecutors & Central Bureau of Investigation officials who kept quite all along and didn’t  press for the extradition of the criminal Mr.Anderson , for  producing the criminal accussed no.1 before the trial court ?
Q 180 . Is it not SHAMEFUL for the judiciary , police , government officials & people’s representatives who became part of Operation Crime Hush Up & aided criminals responsible for ghastly murders of  thousands & maiming of lakhs of hapless public in Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy?
Q 181 . Are these Corrupt Police , corrupt judges , corrupt ministers , corrupt  labour / pollution control board officials  HUMAN BEINGS ?
Q  182    Why  police are  not registering my complaint   against  CJI & other VVIPS ,Even after years ?
Q   183   don’t the  police of vijayanagar police station mysore have legal  jurisdiction  to register  the case  against these VVIPs ? or  just  because the criminals happens to be VVIPs  ,they  are  not booked  by police? If the  said  police don’t have  legal jurisdiction to book  these VVIPs , they should have  transferred the complaint  to  those authorities who have jurisdiction &   authority to book  & prosecute   these  VVIPs , but not done  so , why ?
Q  184  are not all these actions , of  VVIPs & police amounting to  cover up of crimes & criminals ? are  not  these cover ups itself is a crime ?
Q  185.  Even an appeal for justice by post card must be treated as PIL by courts of justice . however my appeals  for justice  concerning public welfare , national security  sent  through  post , e-mail  to supreme court of india are not admitted as Public interest litigation , why ?  does  not these acts of Supreme court amount to aiding criminals , anti nationals?
Q 186   Are not  the honourable chief justice of india  together  with the jurisdictional police & Revenue district magistrate  responsible  to protect  the  fundamental & human rights  of people ?  why the CJI , Mysore DC & Jurisdictional Police  have failed to protect the fundamental & human rights of  people  including mine ? For all the previous injustices I have suffered at the hands of the criminal nexus  Honourable CJI , Mysore revenue district magistrate & jurisdictional police  are  together responsible , if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members or to my dependents the quartet  – Honourable Chief Justice of India , Honourable District Magistrate , Mysore , Honourable Police Commissioner of Mysore city & Circle Inspector of police , vijayanagar police station  , mysore  will be responsible .
These corrupt  parasites will feel  , understand the pain only when they also suffer in the same manner. Let us pray to almighty – In  whose  Court of justice  MATCH FIXING is not there & every body is equal , let us pray to that god to give these corrupt parasites ghastly deaths nothing less nothing more.
 FEES PAID : IPO  16G  733465  for rupees  TWENTY  only

 DATE :  28.03.2015 ……………..………………………NAGARAJA.M.R.


Scrapping collegium was right decision: Justice Chelameswar

In a lone yet strong judgement of dissent against the 'judges-selecting-judges' collegium system, justice J Chelameswar said appointment of judges should not remain the exclusive domain of judiciary and the government and members of civil society must have a say in it. 

Faulting the functioning of the collegium system, he said while it had no accountability, there were instances where it failed too. He said there was an urgent need for comprehensive reform in the present system and lamented that the Supreme Court did not approve NJAC, which was a step in that direction. 

"The nation has witnessed many unpleasant events connected with judicial appointments - events which lend credence to the speculation that the system established by the second and third judges cases in its operational reality is perhaps not the best system for securing an independent and efficient judiciary," he said. 

Terming the collegium system as non-transparent, he said, the correspondence between the government and the CJI, and the record of the consultation process are some of the best guarded secrets of this country. 

"Transparency is an aspect of rationality. The need for transparency is more in the case of appointment process. Proceedings of the collegium were absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history, barring occasional leaks," he said. 

"The records are absolutely beyond the reach of any person including the judges of this court who are not lucky enough to become CJI. Such a state of affairs does not either enhance the credibility of the institution or good for the people of this country," Justice Chelameswar said 

The judge said the judiciary cannot claim to be sole protector of people's right and referred to instances where the Supreme Court failed to live up to citizens' expectation in preserving their liberties. He said "in difficult times when political branches cannot be counted upon, neither can the judiciary". 

"To assume or assert that judiciary alone is concerned with the preservation of liberties and does that job well, is an assumption that is dogmatic, bereft of evidentiary basis and historically disproved... To wholly eliminate the executive from the process of selection would be inconsistent with the foundational premise that government in a democracy is by chosen representatives of the people," he said. 

He said that fiasco created by collegium in appointment of Dinakaran in SC and appointment of a HC judge in Madras HC are part of judicial records but there are many other cases when undeserving people were appointed judges. 

"A few more instances were mentioned at the bar during the course of hearing to demonstrate not only the shallowness of the theory but also the recommendations by the Collegium have not necessarily always been in the best interests of the institution and the nation. It is not really necessary to place on record all the details but it is sufficient to mention that the earlier mentioned two cases are not certainly the only examples of the inappropriate exercise of the power of the collegium," he siad. 

"The fiasco created in Dinakaran case and Shanti Bhushan case would justify the participation of the members of the civil society in the process to eliminate from the selection process the maladies involved in the process. The abovementioned two are not the only cases where the system failed," it said. 

"I only part with this case recollecting the words of Macaulay - reform that you may preserve. Future alone can tell whether I am rightly reminded of those words or not," he said while concluding his judgement.

Constitution’s will upheld

Instead of seeing the NJAC verdict as one that leads to a confrontation between the Parliament and the judiciary, the executive must use this as an opportunity to help the Supreme Court in preparing an institutional design so that appointments are fair and transparent.

Two days after the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), declaring them to be ultra vires the Constitution, the Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, said in his blog, “Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected and if elected are undermined, democracy itself would be in danger.”
Law Minister Sadanand Gowda, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Constitution Bench, said that he was surprised by the verdict. He went on to say, “the NJAC was completely supported by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha; It had 100 per cent support of the people.” Telecommunications Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad — earlier the Law Minister who vigorously worked for the NJAC Bill — remarked that parliamentary sovereignty has received a setback. Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi echoed similar sentiments when he said, “It is a flawed judgment ignoring the unanimous will of the Parliament, half the State Legislatures and the will of the people for transparency in judicial appointments.”
Questions on judicial review
The reaction of the executive to the NJAC verdict raises the fundamental question: Should the exercise of power of judicial review depend upon the will of the Parliament?
Indian Constitution, unlike the Constitutions of United States of America and Australia, does not have an express provision of separation of powers but its sweep, operation and visibility are not unclear. While it is the Parliament’s prerogative to amend the Constitution and make laws, the duty to decide whether the basic elements of the constitutional structure have been transgressed has been placed on the judiciary.
Once the legislature has done a ‘legislative’ act, the constitutionality of such an act can only be decided through the process of judicial review and there can be no rule of law without such a provision. In other words, the power to strike down offending amendments to the Constitution on the touchstone of basic structure can be exercised by the superior judiciary alone, uninfluenced by the will of the Parliament. The rule of law would cease to have any meaning if the discharge of judicial functions is seen as thwarting the will of the people represented by the elected legislatures. Any attempt to reconcile judicial review with the will of representatives of people is sure recipe for destruction of the rule of law.
Our Constitution has given the power of judicial review to the unelected superior judiciary to declare ‘unconstitutional’ a legislative act, once it is found to be violative of the basic structure. It would be a sad day for our democracy if the exercise of judicial function is made dependent on the will of the representatives of people. What remains of democracy if there is no rule of law? The institutional arrangement at the heart of our democracy provides that the will of the people, as reflected in the decisions their elected representatives, is subject to the will of the Constitution, as reflected in the decisions of an independent judiciary.
In the words of Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of American Constitution, “where the will of the legislature declared in the statutes is in opposition to the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than former.” This means that demands of the Constitution can override the wishes of the people expressed through elected governments. These are at the very core of a democratic commitment to judicial independence and constitutional supremacy.
Parliamentary supremacy refers to the power of Parliament to make laws within the limits imposed by the Constitution. It also denotes the supremacy of Parliament over the executive, primarily through the accountability of the Council of Ministers to Parliament. Judicial review of the constitutional validity of laws is also an integral part of a parliamentary democracy.
All the three organs of the state derive the power and jurisdiction from our Constitution. Each must operate within the sphere allotted to it. Judicial function is also a very important sovereign function of the state and provides the foundation for rule of law. When a verdict such as that striking down the NJAC comes, the ebb and flow, the critical scrutiny and the inherent relational tensions are not surprising. They must be handled deftly and with maturity.
Judicial independence is a central goal of most legal systems, and the mode of appointment of judges is seen as a crucial mechanism to achieve this goal. While in all democracies of the world, there is near-universal consensus on the importance of judicial independence, legal systems utilise a wide range of selection mechanisms — the split model, the collaborative model, the parliamentary model, the judicial self selection model and the judicial appointments commission model — in practice. Often, they reflect different conceptions of independence of judiciary.
The diversity of constitutional ethos in different countries suggests that it may not be a good idea to borrow other systems for the selection of judges. It is not wholly correct to say that judges appoint judges in India as consultative participation of the executive is present in the institutionalised procedure prescribed after the Third Judges case, but assuming it to be so, ours is perhaps the only country where the government is the biggest litigant before the courts.
We are one of the very few countries where actions of the political executive in diverse fields — ranging from violation of human rights to wrongful distribution of natural resources and wide range of issues which have huge political ramifications — are brought before the superior judiciary in the public interest litigation. Can judges who are appointed with the direct say of the government be relied upon to deliver neutral and high-quality decisions in such matters? It is no exaggeration to say that appointment processes shape the ability of courts to hold political institutions to account.
Veto to non-judicial members
In the Second Judges case, the nine-judge Bench exposited that appointment of judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court forms an integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution, and therefore, the executive cannot interfere with the primacy of judiciary in the matter of appointments. The NJAC’s flawed composition consisted of the fact that it merged certain components, reflected in the inclusion of Law Minister and two eminent persons and giving any two members the power to veto the decision of the other four. This directly affected the independence of judiciary in the judicial appointments process. Had the Parliament maintained the primacy of the judiciary while providing for the entire scheme of working of the NJAC, the decision may have been different.
It is true that while legislatures respond to the urgings of the people, the judges serve only for justice — for them justice is the only mandate. I see the NJAC verdict as a demonstration of constitutional compliance and not of the judiciary flexing its muscles to knock out the people’s will. For me, democracy is enhanced when judiciary effectively fulfils its constitutional mandate. Democratic values are strengthened not only by a strong legislature but also by a strong judiciary so that together a mutually respectful and independent partnership on the public’s right to justice is maintained.
While I admire the well crafted article “Usurping Parliament’s Power,” written by Abhishek Manu Singhvi , I find myself unable to agree with his reasoning. However, I agree with him that judicial appointments need fresh air and an innovative and objective set of inputs. That is what I felt as the Chief Justice of India. I wanted to institutionalise the best practices that would bring fairness and transparency in the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. I had a long meeting with Chris Stephens and Lord Toulson, Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively, of Judicial Appointments Commission, England and Wales to understand their working in the judicial appointments.
The judges who delivered the judgment in the NJAC case also hold the view that an improvement in the working of the collegium system is the need of the hour. They have proposed a hearing on this aspect on November 3.
Instead of seeing the NJAC verdict as one that leads to a confrontation between the Parliament and the judiciary in the matter of the appointment and transfer of judges of the superior judiciary, the executive must use this as an opportunity to help the Supreme Court in preparing an institutional design so that all appointments by the collegium meet the tests of fairness and transparency and all selections are made solely on merit with an encouragement provided to the diversity in the persons available for selection. Appoint good judges; the rest will follow.

NJAC Verdict: Excerpts of Justice Chelameswar's Opinion Against SC Judgement

A five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, with its 4-1 verdict against the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, has triggered an intense debate among legal experts, the Central government and political parties. Against this backdrop, we bring you excerpts from the strongly-worded opinion against the judgment penned by Justice Jasti Chelameswar, the lone dissenting voice of the Bench
We the members of the judiciary exult and frolic in our emancipation from the other two organs of the State. But have we developed an alternate constitutional morality to emancipate us from the theory of checks and balances, robust enough to keep us in control from abusing such independence? Have we acquired independence greater than our intelligence, maturity and nature could digest? Have we really outgrown the malady of dependence or merely transferred it from the political to judicial hierarchy? Are we nearing such ethical and constitutional disorder that frightened civil society runs back to Mother Nature or some other less wholesome authority to discipline us? Has all the independence acquired by the judicial branch since 6th October, 1993 been a myth — a euphemism for nepotism enabling inter alia promotion of mediocrity or even less — are questions at the heart of the debate in this batch of cases by which the petitioners question the validity of the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. 
Fortunately, there is no difference of opinion between the parties regarding the proposition that existence of an independent judiciary is an essential requisite of a Democratic Republic. Nor is there any difference of opinion regarding the proposition that an independent judiciary is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India. After some 20 years of the working of the regime created under the Second Judges case (Collegium system), serious questions arose whether the regime emanating as a consequence of the interpretation placed by this Court, yielded any constitutionally aspired result of the establishment of an independent and efficient judiciary — CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS. Answer regarding independence can be subjective, and efficiency, perhaps, may not be very pleasant. a few years doubts arose regarding the true purport of the Second Judges case. The President of India invoked Article 143 and sought certain clarifications on the judgment of the Second Judges case leading to the opinion of this Court. Unfortunately, the factual matrix on which doubts were entertained by the Government of India are not recorded in the opinion. But para 41 of the Third Judges case records: “. …We take the optimistic view that successive Chief Justices of India shall henceforth act in accordance with the Second Judges case and this opinion.” No wonder, gossip and speculations gather momentum and currency in such state of affairs. If a nine-Judge Bench of this Court takes an optimistic view that successive Chief Justices of India shall henceforth act in accordance with the Second Judges case, the only logical inference that can be drawn is that the law laid down by the Second Judges case was not faithfully followed by the successive Chief Justices, if not in all, at least in some cases attracting comments. 
In the next one-and-a-half decade, this nation has witnessed many unpleasant events connected with judicial appointments — events which lend credence to the speculation that the system established by the Second and Third Judges cases in its operational reality is perhaps not the best system for securing an independent and efficient judiciary. I am aware that a few bad examples of the improper exercise of power does not determine the character of the power. Such inappropriate exercise of power was resorted to also by the Executive already noticed earlier. Both branches of government are accusing each other of not being worthy of trust. At least a section of the civil society believes that both are right. The impugned AMENDMENT came in the backdrop of the above-mentioned experience.
Articles 124 and 217 deal with one of the elements necessary to establish an independent judiciary — the appointment process. The system of Collegium, the product of an interpretative gloss on the text of Articles 124 and 217 undertaken in the Second and Third Judges case, may or may not be the best to establish and nurture an independent and efficient judiciary. There are seriously competing views expressed by eminent people, both on the jurisprudential soundness of the judgments and the manner in which the Collegium system operated in the last two decades. Neither the jurisprudential correctness of the concept of Collegium nor how well or ill the Collegium system operated in the last two decades is the question before us. The question is — whether such a system is immutable or is Parliament competent to amend the Constitution and create an alternative mechanism for selection and appointment of the members of CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS of this country.
By the very nature of the basic feature with which we are dealing, it does not confer any fundamental or constitutional right in favour of individuals. It is only a means for securing to the people of India, justice, liberty and equality. It creates a collective right in favour of the polity to have a judiciary which is free from the control of the Executive or the Legislature in its essential function of decision making. The challenge to the AMENDMENT is required to be examined in the light of the preceding discussion. The petitioners argued that (i) Independence of the judiciary is a basic feature (COMPONENT) of the basic structure of the Constitution; (ii) the process of appointment of members of constitutional courts is an essential ingredient (ELEMENT) of such COMPONENT; (iii) the process prescribed under unamended Articles 124 and 217, as interpreted by this Court in the Second and Third Judges cases, is a basic feature and was so designed by framers of the Constitution for ensuring independence of the judiciary, by providing for primacy of the opinion of the CJI (Collegium); and not of the opinion of the President (the Executive); (iv) the AMENDMENT dilutes such primacy and tilts the balance in favour of the Executive, thereby abrogating a basic feature, leading to destruction of the basic structure. 
The prime target of attack by the petitioners is Section 2(a) of the AMENDMENT by which the institutional mechanism for appointment of judges of constitutional courts is replaced. According to the petitioners, the AMENDMENT is a brazen attempt by the Executive branch to grab the power of appointing Judges to CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS. Such shift of power into the hands of Executive would enable packing of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS with persons who are likely to be less independent. It is further argued that the principles laid down in the Second and Third Judges cases are not based purely on the interpretation of the text of the Constitution as it stood prior to the impugned AMENDMENT but also on the basis of a fundamental Constitutional principle that an independent judiciary is one of the basic features of the Constitution. The procedure for appointment of the Judges of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS is an important element in the establishment and nurturing of an independent judiciary. Such conclusion not only flows from the text of the Articles 124 and 217 as they stood prior to the impugned AMENDMENT but flow from a necessary implication emanating from the scheme of the Constitution as evidenced by Articles 32, 50, 112(3)(d), 113(1), 203(1), 125(2), 221(2) etc.
Mr Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, emphatically submitted that he is not against change of the mechanism provided under Articles 124 and 217. He submitted that this aspect of the matter fell for consideration of Justice MN Venkatachaliah Commission,  which also recommended creation of a National Judicial Appointments Commission but with a slightly different composition. If really Parliament wanted to change the mechanism for the selection of the members of the superior judiciary, the model recommended by the Justice MN Venkatachaliah Commission could well have been adopted. According to Mr Nariman, the model identified by Venkatachaliah Commission is more suitable for preservation of independence of the judiciary than the model adopted in the AMENDMENT. Mr Nariman further argued that no reasons are given by the Union of India explaining why recommendations of the Justice MN Venkatachaliah Commission were not accepted.
Primacy of the opinion of judiciary in the matter of judicial appointments is not the only means for the establishment of an independent and efficient judiciary. There is abundance of opinion (in discerning and responsible quarters of the civil society in the legal fraternity, jurists, political theorists and scholars) that primacy to the opinion of judiciary is not a normative or constitutional fundamental for establishment of an independent and efficient judiciary. Such an assumption has been proved to be of doubtful accuracy. It is Parliament’s asserted assumption that induction of civil society representation will bring about critically desirable transparency, commitment and participation of the ultimate stakeholders — the people, the fountain of all constitutional authority, to ensure appointment of the most suitable persons with due regard to legitimate aspirations of the several competing interests.
Various democratic societies have and are experimenting with models involving association of civil society representation in such selection process. Assessment of the product of such experiments are however inconclusive. The question is not whether the model conceived by the AMENDMENT would yield a more independent and efficient judiciary. The question is whether Parliament’s wisdom and authority to undertake such an experiment by resort to constituent power is subject to curial audit.
As rightly pointed out by the Attorney General, the basic feature of the Constitution is not primacy of the opinion of the CJI (Collegium) but lies in non investiture of absolute power in the President (Executive) to choose and appoint judges of CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS. That feature is not abrogated by the AMENDMENT. The Executive may at best only make a proposal through its representative in the NJAC, i.e. the Law Minister. Such proposal, if considered unworthy, can still be rejected by the other members of the NJAC. The worth of a candidate does not depend upon who proposes the name nor the candidate’s political association, if any, should be a disqualification.
To wholly eliminate the Executive from the process of selection would be inconsistent with the foundational premise that government in a democracy is by chosen representatives of the people. Established principles of constitutional government, practices in other democratic constitutional arrangements and the fact that the Constituent Assembly provided a role for the Executive clearly prohibit the inference that Executive participation in the selection process abrogates a basic feature.
Even prior to the AMENDMENT, the constitutional text had no express guidelines for the President and the CJI to follow. It is however nobody’s case that the pre-AMENDMENT selection scenario conferred any uncanalised discretion and therefore resulted in some undesirable judicial appointments. If in practice, occasionally personal preferences outweighed concerns of public interest resulting in undesirable appointments, it is not because of constitutional silences in this area but because of shortcomings in the ethical standards of the participants in the selection process. After the AMENDMENT, the obligation is unvaried. The only change is in the composition of the players to whom the task is entrusted and the mode of performing the task is altered with a view to achieve greater degree of transparency in the selection process. To contend that the AMENDMENT is destructive of the basic structure since it does not lay down any guidelines tantamounts to holding that the design of the Constitution as originally enacted is defective!
Only an independent and efficient judicial system can create confidence in the society which it serves. The ever increasing pendency of matters before various CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS of this country is clearly not a certificate of efficiency. The frequency with which the residuary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 is invoked seeking correction of errors committed by the High Courts, some of which are trivial and some profound coupled with bewildering number of conflicting decisions rendered by the various benches of this Court only indicate that a comprehensive reform of the system is overdue. Selection process of the Judges to the CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS is only one of the aspects of such reforms. An attempt in that direction, unfortunately, failed to secure the approval of this Court leaving this Court with the sole responsibility and exclusive accountability of the efficiency of the legal system.

Judges who opt out of hearing should explain why, says SC judge

Constitutional duty of judges to be transparent: Justice Kurian Joseph.

Justice Kurian Joseph, who comprised the five-judge Constitution Bench that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) last week, has favoured disclosure of reasons by judges when they decide not to hear a case and ask it to be placed before some other judge in that court. Currently, judges are not obligated to give reasons while opting out of hearing cases.
Juxtaposing his views with the idea of transparency and accountability, Justice Joseph, while authoring his separate judgment, said Friday that the constitutional duty cast upon the judges would warrant putting in public domain the reasons for a judge to recuse.

“Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case… it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case,” Justice Joseph said.
He said judges ought to start doing it so that litigants and well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding that the recusal was for altogether irrelevant reasons such as a situation where the judge does not want to decide a sensitive or controversial issue, or that he is not happy with the roster, or when he is getting unduly sensitive about the public perception of his image, or if if he doesn’t want to displease anybody.
“Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,” Justice Joseph said.
Transparency in procedure, he said, is one of the major factors constituting the integrity of the office of a judge in conducting his duties and the functioning of the court, and so adopting a principle of disclosing reasons for recusal will augur well with it.
This will also help curb the tendency of forum shopping when a mischievous litigant, wanting to avoid a judge because the judge is known to be very strong, could raise baseless submissions on the conflict of interest, Justice Joseph said.
Only in certain exceptional cases where the disclosure of reasons is likely to affect prejudicially any case or cause or interest of someone else, the judges should refrain from giving reasons he said.
Another judge on the bench, Justice Madan Lokur also said that questions over recusal are quite significant and since it appears that such applications are gaining frequency, it is time that some procedural and substantive rules are framed in this regard. “If appropriate rules are framed, then, in a given case, it would avoid embarrassment to other judges on the bench,” he said.
Their views assume significance as judges’ recusal from various high-profile and sensitive cases have often raised questions. For example, since January, at least 18 of the 52 Punjab and Haryana High Court judges, or more than one-third of the total strength, recused from hearing high-profile cases — some have done so in more than one case, and in most cases, no reasons were cited.
In the NJAC case, the issue of recusal came up as senior advocate Fali S Nariman, who appeared for lead petitioner Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, sought Justice J S Khehar’s recusal from this case. He said it was perhaps inappropriate for Justice Khehar to preside over the bench since he was a member of the collegium in the Supreme Court and the NJAC had sought to replace the collegium system.
By an unanimous decision, the five judges rejected Nariman’s plea, noting there was no plausible reason why Justice Khehar or anyone else should recuse since all the five judges, at some point of time, would either become a member of the collegium or the NJAC, if it was not struck down.
While Justices Khehar, J Chelameswar and Adarsh K Goel gave specific reasons for rejecting the plea for recusal, Justices Joseph and Lokur dealt with the larger issue on whether the judges should always give reasons for recusing — like what they did in the NJAC case.

Problems In Judicial Accountability
In a Democracy, the Constitution is supreme which resolves to secure to all its citizens Justice. The judiciary is thus, appropriately one of the most important agencies of any democratic government. It is an independent body protecting the rights of the citizens and guarding the constitution zealously.
It has been rightly said that ‘Effective access to justice can be seen as the most basic requirement, the most basic human right, of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights.’ [1] The judiciary is in a very powerful position in any democracy and demands supreme confidence from the people. An individual, when harassed and threatened by the politics that engulf most governments, turn with great hope to the Judiciary.
But are our judges infallible? Aren’t they humans? And isn’t to err human? They are but the products of the society. They suffer from the same failings, frailties and shortcomings. From the same bias and prejudice and the same ills and vices. [2] Then who will judge the judges? ‘Judge not that ye be not judged’ cannot be applicable to judges in today’s scenario of corruption and judicial scandals.
Every institution of the government is accountable to some agency or the other. Every government official and body is also fully answerable to the Judiciary of the country. But when it comes to the Judiciary itself, a different set of rules, a different set of standards are followed. The Judiciary has become a judge in its own cause.
Judicial corruption has always been a part and parcel of the working of the judiciary but the recent scandals have created much concern of the slowly rotting state of the Courts. The question that is raised - ‘Who are the Judges accountable to?’ is a very valid and justifiable question. The judiciary is not accountable to the people as the people do no elect the members of the judiciary. [3] It is neither responsible to the other bodies of the government due to an ever present hue and cry about separation of power [4] and independence. So, are we creating a system of irresponsible judiciary in a scheme of democracy and republic where Judiciary is the sole guardian of the Constitution, the very foundation of the State?
Judicial Accountability and Judicial Independence
The Constitution confers great powers to the judiciary and the judiciary in turn demands wide latitude in exercising its power. The Indian judiciary is forever hidden in a cloak of secrecy. Independence has become an euphemism for the judges to act according to their whims and fancies. We should remember that it is the rule of the law [5] and not the rule of the judges or even the lawyers.
The judiciary does require certain amount of independence to carry out is functions without favor or fear. But are Independence and Accountability anti-thesis of each other? Judicial Independence is not an end itself. Both judicial independence and accountability are instrumental values. The function of independence is to let the judges decide according to the rule of law and not be influenced by any other agency of the government or any private interests or the interests of any individual. So we can safely conclude that if the judges start deciding cases arbitrarily, become corrupt, ignore the rule of law and are influenced by politics or the appeal of private gain, then their judicial independence is hampered. That is why judicial independence has to be understood in the context of its purpose.
Judicial accountability and judicial independence are complimentary to each other. Judicial accountability helps safeguard the independence and integrity of the judges. Sometimes judicial accountability can be misconstrued as it is context- based. It is very difficult to define judicial accountability and it has to be appreciated from the view of its objectives. It can be said to have three main functions. [6] Firstly to promote the rule of law by deterring any conduct that might hinder judicial independence. Secondly, to advance public confidence in the judiciary. And lastly to promote institutional responsibility of the judiciary as a whole towards the public. Seen in this perspective, judicial accountability seems if not more significant than as significant as judicial independence.
Problems of Accountability
The people hold a great stake in the administration of justice. Despite the value of judicial accountability in any free democratic republic, the judiciary in India is at best completely unaccountable to any institution in the country. Many factors have contributed to this dire situation and the problem of accountability is wide and complex.
The Contempt Of Courts Act
One of the critical reasons for the low accountability of judges in India is the power of the Courts to punish for its Contempt [7] . The Contempt of Court Act defines Contempt as Civil or Criminal. It further states that Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. [8
Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court ; or
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. [9
What is scandalizing the authority of the court has nowhere been defined and judges have time and again taken great advantage to silence even bona fide criticism advanced against them or the working of the judiciary. And this silence is not golden, just yellow. It is heavy weaponry in the hands of the Courts who have become so intolerant that they are unwilling to be questioned by the public they serve. Judicial independence has been twisted and turned to suit their purposes and used as an armor and justification for quashing any disapproval shown by few courageous members of the society.
The main purpose of the Contempt Power has been to enable the court to be able to enforce its orders and to punish for obstruction in administration in justice. But over the years this power has been considerably widened and freely used by the courts. Today, in countries like UK and U.S.A. the concept has been liberalized. But India still follows the old British-rule norms, which undoubtedly was not a free democracy.
Lord Diplock has stated that the species of contempt which consists of scandalizing is virtually obsolescent in England and maybe ignored. [10] In the U.S., the law is only invoked if there is clear and present danger to the administration to justice.
The Arundhati Roy Case is a sad example of how even in a social democracy like ours where Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right, the Courts hold in contempt legitimate representation by a citizen regarding the working of the Court and its decision which in no way impede the dispensation of Justice.
Similarly in the recent Wah India Case, The Contempt of Courts act was invoked against Editor-in-Chief of wah India, Madhu Trehan, and four staff members of the magazine for having published an article rating the High Court's Judges in terms of various attributes and qualities. It can be argued that this does amount to bad journalism. But how does the article obstruct the administration of justice and why can’t the defamation [11] law be enough to punish the wrongdoers. A Judge whose name is impugned in such an article can surely file a defamation case.
Earlier even truth was not considered as a defense to imputation against the Courts. In many cases the judges reiterated to this thought. Now truth has been made a valid defense to contempt. [12] But this is a discretionary power given to the Court and is not enough to protect the public against this extensive authority handed over to the Courts. Sometimes certain allegations are made bona fide, reasonably, and still it might be not be possible to prove the truth as it happened in the Mysore sex scandal case.
Power of contempt cannot be the answer to sincere critique of the working of the judiciary. The argument that the court’s integrity and esteem can be injured if appropriate action is not taken does not hold any water. When the courts decide to use the contempt power, they ordinarily tarnish their reputation further by showing a bigoted attitude.
Our constitution promises every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. [13] On the other hand the constitution also makes the High Courts [14] and the Supreme Court [15] , courts of record and empowers them to punish for its contempt. These two provisions seems to be contradictory in many a cases. The right of freedom to expression and speech has been fervently upheld by the Supreme Court in various cases over the years. But when the ball comes to its own court, Supreme Court has shown double- standards.
There is no clarity on which law supersedes which. The issue that arises is, aren’t the fundamental rights of the citizens supreme and more important then the so called independence of the Courts. “Indeed, to criticize a Judge fairly albeit fiercely, is no crime, but a necessary right, twice blessed in a democracy.” [16] There has to be a way to reconcile these two laws.
Serious reforms are needed in the law of contempt. It is high time that the Courts interpret the Contempt of Courts Act more liberally and realize that justice is more important than individual egos. In a healthy democratic state public opinion, discussions, awareness and debates are imperative to the progress of the nation. This is impossible in a system where the media, jurists and other citizens are silenced due to the fear of being subjugated to contempt laws. Judiciary has to earn reverence through the test of truth and not by fear. [17
Appointment and Selection of Judges
The court being such an important institution in the country, it is imperative to select judges of high veracity who can uphold the constitution. Four qualifications [18] described for a judge are- he should be able to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially. This only indicates the consequences of a bad appointment arrangement for a judge. The appointment of judges in India makes a good example of this.
The Indian Constitution states that the Supreme Court of India will comprise of the Chief Justice of India and at the most 7 other judges. [19] This number has now been increased to 25. The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President on the consultation of other judges of Supreme Court and High Court. Other than in case of the appointment of the Chief Justice of India himself, the President has to consult the Chief Justice of India when appointing the other judges. High Court judges [20] are also appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the concerned state. The Chief Justice of the High Court is also consulted for appointing the judges, other than for the appointment of the Chief Justice himself.
In the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, [21] it was held that the President has the right to differ from the advice provided by the judges and it can only be challenged if it is based on mala-fide and irrelevant consideration. This decision was reversed in SC Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India [22] whereby it was held that in the matter of appointment of judges of high courts and Supreme Court, the Chief Justice should have the primacy and the appointment of the Chief Justice should be based on seniority. It further held that the Chief Justice must consult his two senior most judges and the recommendation must be made only if there is a consensus among them. Further the Third Judge Transfer case held that an advice given by the Chief Justice without proper consultation with other judges is not binding on the govt. These two judgments practically make India the only democracy where judges select themselves. The Second Judge Transfer case is a truly sad decision which undermines any kind of accountability in the appointment procedure of the Judges. Effectively a collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India comprising of senior most judges of the High Court selects and recommends the names to the Government for appointment. The Government may ask the collegium to reconsider the names. But in case the collegium returns back with the same recommendation, the Government cannot but ask the President to accept the recommendation.
The whole procedure is ad hoc and arbitrary. There is no clear grounds according to which the judges are recommended. There is such a secrecy surrounding the whole modus operandi and it is defended with ambiguity. The only trend that emerges is that well- connected people are appointed. Proximity to power has become a criterion.
What is amazing to note is that, in the lack of a mechanism for making judges accountable, a judge with doubtful integrity and motives is also appointed as the judge even after the questions are raised regarding the suitability of him as a judge. This is well illustrated by the case of Justice Ashok Kumar. The collegium of three senior judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided not to confirm him as a permanent judge in August 2005 because of serious doubts regarding his integrity. Despite this his appointment was confirmed in February 2007 on the Chief Justice's recommendation.
Similarly, Justice M.M. Punchi was a judge of Supreme Court in 1998 and motion of impeachment was initiated against him. Before the motion could succeed, he became the Chief Justice of India. After that it became impossible to get the requisite signatures of the ministers to pass the motion.
Recently Justice A.P. Shah Retired from judicial office and this raised many questions regarding the mechanism of appointment of the judges. When asked by an activist why he was not elevated to Supreme Court despite his seniority, the Government replied that seniority is not a criterion. Though, clearly tradition says otherwise. Moreover the department of justice has given two different answers in responses under the RTI Act. [23] One response states ‘merit, ability, suitability and seniority’ as the criteria, while the other rules out seniority as one of the yardsticks.
This shows a total lack of transparency and the presence of ambiguous and vague methods. There is a critical want of restructuring the law. This was a short time ago highlighted by the Dinakaran episode also.
Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran was recommended for appointment by the collegium for the post of Chief Justice of India. When certain top jurists, lawyers and activists raised objection to this recommendation, the Government returned the same to the collegium. Later impeachment proceedings were initiated against him. Even while these proceedings were pending against the Justice, he was sworn in as the Chief Justice to the High Court of Sikkim. This is the revolting state of affairs in our judiciary.
The impeachment procedure for a judge in India is one of the most impractical and difficult procedure to put into motion. The motion has to be addressed to both the houses of the parliament and should be passed by a simple majority of the whole house and also by a 2/3rd majority of members present and voting. [24] No Member of Parliament is willing to sign and vote for such a motion unless there is hard proof against the judge. This is not possible unless an investigation is conducted to gather evidence. But due to the decision in K. Veeraswamy’s Case this is not possible unless a special permission by Chief Justice of India is granted to investigate the Judge. Now such permission is again not given unless the charge has substantial proof backing it. And proof cannot be obtained without an investigation. This is the lacuna in the law.
Public pressure is another factor that plays important role in the decision taken by the Members of Parliament. If such a charge has gathered public and media interest, they are more willing to initiate the impeachment motion. But of course any such public discussion by the media is muted by the contempt laws.
This is the vicious circle of the impeachment of judges. The unfeasibility and hopelessness of this law has been seen time and again when impeachment procedure has been tried to be initiated against corrupt judges.
The first time ever impeachment proceedings were initiated against a sitting judge of Supreme Court was in K. Veeraswamy vs. Union of India [25] . The motion for impeachment in this instance failed and was defeated in the Lok Sabha. This was not so because any member of the house was against the motion, but only because they all abstained from voting. How can the ministers who are the major litigants in the court be trusted to select or remove the judges?
Moreover after this decision not a single Chief Justice of India has granted permission to investigate a judge. In case of Shamit Mukherjee, the evidence was obtained coincidentally. When confronted with the same by the Chief Justice, he resigned. After that the question of permission for investigating did not arise.
When Justice A.S. Anand was the Chief Justice of India, serious allegations of favoritism and corruption were raised against him based on valid grounds. But no action was taken. Instead he was later appointed as the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
The whole scheme of impeachment is frustrating and time-consuming and its utility is non-existent. In addition, it is depended upon a corruption ridden government and is highly susceptible to political pressure.
Disciplinary Mechanism
There is virtually no disciplinary mechanism to deal with complaints against the judges. The in-house mechanism is a futile attempt of bringing the judges to justice. Impeachment is too harsh a punishment and cannot, even if practical, be the answer to every kind of misbehavior and misconduct on the part of the Judges. Impeachment is like a penal code providing only for one extreme punishment, viz., death sentence [26] and nothing else. If the misconduct is not grave enough to demand impeachment, what is then the remedy? Is it correct in such a scenario to let the Judge continue in office? Is he not accountable at all for his behavior?
Time and again, the Government has tried to enact a bill bringing in force a suitable disciplinary instrument but failed miserably. The talk of a National Judicial Council has been on going forever but nothing has till date come out of it. The Judges Inquiry Bill, 2006, recommended the constitution of a National Judicial Council with powers to investigate complaints against the judges and recommend suitable actions. It suggested that the complaint be allowed to be made by anyone against any judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court except for the Chief Justice of India. The members of the council would be the Chief Justice of India, two senior most Supreme Court Judges and two High Court Judges. In case of a complaint brought forward against a Supreme Court Judge it would comprise of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most judges of the Supreme Court.
But the National Judicial Council has failed to come into existence. It only proves to be a half-hearted attempt to satisfy the masses. The composition of the council is not at all satisfactory and it only compounds the problem. It is just another example of the judiciary being a judge in its own cause. When every sitting Chief Justice of India has found it not necessary to allow the investigation of any claim of corruption against the judges over so many years, why would this council, headed by such a judge, take any worthwhile action against delinquent judges?
A need for a National Judicial Commission was also felt which would be an independent investigating body to investigate complaints against judges and take disciplinary action. No draft bill has still been finalized as yet.
We need a workable mechanism for disciplining erring judges and it should constitute both corrective and punitive measures. Different types of misconduct should be dealt with differently. For this purpose accountability can be divided into three kinds. [27] Firstly, collective or institutional accountability. In such a case the judiciary is accountable as a whole and as a separate organ of the government. Secondly, behavioral accountability where a judge is responsible for his individual actions both in office and out of the office (judicial and extra-judicial). Even certain extra judicial incidents may reflect badly on the suitability of a person to continue as a Judge. These might be action in private capacity of the individual but speak about the character and honor of the person. Thirdly, decisional accountability whereby a judge is fully responsible for the judicial decisions he takes. It is this kind of approach that is required towards the problem of accountability in the judicial system.
Other Problems
It is disgraceful in a democratic republic for judges holding positions of significance to come under the radar for dishonest and crooked acts. Immune from any authority’s scrutiny and empowered with judicial review, the courts have started interpreting laws to suit their aims and fortify themselves from any external scanning. They have invented their own laws, rules, and methods of implementation, and have used contempt of court as a threat for disobedience of their orders. [28] Also every judge tries to impose his own personal philosophy and ideas in his judgments. This has led to a vast number of contradictory judgments on the same issues. Somehow many of them have forgotten that their decisions should be backed by reasons and not by personal ideas. It was truly said that-
“we must regard the attitude of the judges as typical of decision making habits of middle class metropolitan Indians:  technically unpredictable, not uninfluenced by imitative cosmopolitan habits, conditioned by native instinct to a depth not yet predictable by the psychologist or documented even by the novelist, the dramatist or the fiction-writer, and suffering from an over-sensitive opinion of their lonely and unparalleled position." [29
In the absence of any responsibility of the Judiciary to anyone but itself, the Judges have started considering themselves as demi-Gods. It only goes to show on that ‘Corruptio optima pessima’- corruption of the best is the worst of all. The judiciary is plagued with numerous problems and the lack of any kind of scheme of accountability has let to the decay in the system. The common man is slowly loosing all confidence in the judicial system. The vast amount of backlogs and delays in cases only reinforces this loss of faith. Adjournments are given easily and witnesses wait for hours to have evidence recorded. A simple Xerox of a document takes a year long. [30] Most of the Judges are least bothered about their dockets and conduct the proceedings according to their whims and fancies. The number of days and number of hours that the Supreme Court and High Court Judges work is just not enough to deal with the problem. The situation in district courts is worse off.
Despite a code of judicial values and various laws regarding the same, judges over and over show complete disregards for the law of the land. For example a judge should not decide a case whereby he might have certain vested personal interests. Nevertheless judges hear and decide cases which directly or indirectly affect their individual interests and escape any kind of punishment or disciplining due to a complete lack of enforcement machinery for the same.
Justice Kapadia and Justice Y.S. Sabharwal make good cases to the point. Justice Kapadia was alleged to having decided the Vedanta case in 2007 and 2008 despite a conflict of interests. The explanation forwarded by the Justice was that he had disclosed the presence of a conflict of interests at the very outset of the case and also that none of the parties objected to his presence on the Special Bench. This representation was nothing but an attempt at misleading the Courts. He only disclosed his interest in the case near the end of the hearing before passing a judgment and secondly the parties which initiated the challenge never consented to his presence on the bench. Unfortunately this is not the only case where the Judge has alleged to have had a conflict of interests.
In the case of Justice Y.S. Sabharwal, he gained some property related benefits during the sealing of commercial properties in Delhi in which he played an instrumental role.
The courts are truly at the edge of a precipice. Judges cannot continue to act like Kings answerable to none.
These are not the only problems faced by the Indian Judiciary. The increasing role of politics in the realm of Justice has only amplified the crisis of accountability. But this is not a new phenomenon. The best case in point is the Fundamental Rights case [31] . During the hearing of the case, the Attorney- General then, appearing for the Union of India and the counsel for some states expressly referred in open court, to the alternative of ‘political action’ if the Supreme Court’s ruling did not favor with the Government. [32
The instances of such nexus between corrupt politicians and the judiciary have only grown over the years. Another example of the court being sucked into politics is the Government asking the Chief Justice of India to decide whether the then Prime Minister Mr. Desai’s son should be prosecuted or not.
The task of the judiciary is to only decide the cases before it. It is in this scenario that separation of power protects the integrity and independence of the judiciary. It is true that ‘you are what you wear’ and it is up to the Judges to keep up certain manner of conduct which will put them in a category beyond the politicians and members of the bureaucracy. [33] In order to exact reverence from the masses, they need to conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach.
This goal seems much farther in the wake of the judicial outrages erupting all over the nation. U.P. High Court Judge, Justice Jagdish Bhalla was promoted as the chief justice of the Kerala High Court in 2006 and then again nominated as Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice in 2008 despite serious charges of corruption against him. No action is being taken even in the case of Justice Vijender Jain who was involved in the Delhi sealing case. He was amazingly promoted as the Chief Justice of Punjab Haryana High Court. The Government has no comments about the lack on any actions or investigations.
Ghaziabad Provident Fund Scam case is another ugly illustration of the decaying condition of the judicial system. In the Ghaziabad district court, successive judges had siphoned out over seven crores from the State Treasury in the guise of Provident Fund advances. The same was reported to the High Court by certain judges of the district court. This was then substantiated by the confessional statement of one Mr. Ashutosh Asthana who was the administrative officer of the court. He later died under mysterious circumstances in the jail. The police was told that it cannot directly investigate the judges by the Chief Justice of India and later the case was transferred to the CBI [34] . Though many small time employees were charge sheeted, no judge was charge sheeted. Later, due to the public pressure, CBI was allowed to investigate. Only six judges, out of the many named, were allowed to be prosecuted by the Supreme Court who are, not surprisingly, now retired.
The Right To Information (RTI) Act
and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan
Upon all this the Judiciary considers itself above the law and has invented various ways of shielding itself from the RTI Act. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of asking the Government to amend the Act to exclude Supreme Court from its purview. Recently a query regarding the declaration of the Judges’ assets under the RTI was raised to the then Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan. As per the resolution adopted by the judges on May 7th, 1997, the judges are supposed to disclose the details of their various assets to the Chief Justice. The query under the RTI only questioned whether this was being followed or not and did not ask for the details of the disclosure. But Justice K.G. Balakrishnan refused to answer the query on the basis that the declaration of the assets by the judges is only a voluntary provision and cannot be enforced by Law. Sadly when the Central Information Commission directed the Supreme Court to disclose the same to the RTI applicant, Supreme Court challenged this order by a writ petition in the High Court.
In a happy turn of events, the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice A.P. Shah rejected the stand of the Chief Justice. [35] But it still shows the arrogance and “superior” behavior of the Supreme Court Judges.
In such a weak system of accountability, the individual elevated to the post of the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, has been in the media light a lot during his tenure, for mostly the wrong reasons. He has been accused of being hypocrite and two-faced when it comes to his subordinate judges. When Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court refused to resign despite his indictment by the in-house procedure, Justice Balakrishnan asked the government to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. [36] On the other hand somehow the scandal involving Justice Reghupathy was allowed to die down easily.
Another shameful scandal whereby the Chief Justice allowed the charges to die down is the cash-at-judge’s-door case. In this case an amount of Rs. 15 lacs was delivered at the house of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur by a lawyer’s clerk. The incident was reported and it was found out that the money was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav but was mistakenly delivered to Justice Kaur. The In-house inquiry committee found Justice Nirmal Yadav guilty and so did the CBI. When Justice Nirmal Yadav was confronted by the CJI, he blatantly threatened to expose other judges involved in such corrupt activities. Later Attorney- General Milon Banerjee gave cryptic explanations and stated that there was not a shred of evidence against the Justice. Justice Balakrishnan also suggested that the case be closed. It is only now that the present Chief Justice, S.H. Kapadia has given permission to the CBI to prosecute the former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan is again in the spotlight as questions are being brought up about his role in his son-in-law amassing vast amounts of properties. This sudden rise of his son-in-law took place almost simultaneously during his holding of the office of the Chief Justice of India. Justice Balakrishnan has naturally denied any involvement.
The recent media hype created by the cases of judicial corruption has pressurized the Government to take certain steps towards accountability. The National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reforms (2009-12) [37] lays down a time-bound plan of action which focuses on the problem of delay in and arrears in the judicial system and enhancing accountability.
The Government has also planned to make important changes and solve various problems faced by the judiciary today by the Judicial Standards and Accountability bill, 2010, which will govern appointments, complaints regarding misbehavior, declaration of assets by the judges, etc. It contemplates the bringing into force of a Complaints Security Panel in the Supreme Court and every High Court which will entertain complaints and refer them to the National Judicial Oversight Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India. It also contemplates to set up an independent body for investigating the claims against judges and carrying out disciplinary actions.
One can only hope that the various committees and bodies that will be constituted under the bill be independent and free from any influence by the executive or the Judiciary.
Sweeping reforms are necessary in the current judicial system. The Judges have to accept that the maxim “be you ever so high, the law is above you” applies to them as well. [38] The judiciary has to be modernized and technologically developed. The judges cannot continue to function with untrained employees and outdated equipments. Furthermore, the system of justice has to be made more accessible to the common man and the procedural formalities be reduced considerably. It is crucial that the number of benches and judges be enlarged. The working hours and the working days of Supreme Court and High Court judges should be increased.
Transparency will go a long way in promoting judicial accountability. An independent body, unrestrained by judicial or executive influences has to be set up to look into the problems of accountability. It should be an institutional multi-member body brought into force by the Constitution and answerable to it. Every citizen should be allowed to refer to the body any complaint against the judges and the complaints should be disclosed to the public.
The Justice Veeraswamy judgment should be amended to allow investigating bodies to investigate claims against judges if made genuinely and on basis of reasonable grounds. A performance commission can help ensure that judges uphold the values demanded by their high office.
The root problem of judicial corruption is the very appointment procedure. If its procedure is democratic, fair and transparent- the quality of judges appointed will undoubtedly be superlative. The impeachment procedure also has to be made more practical and a proper disciplinary mechanism put into place. Both the selection and removal of the judges has to be a just, impartial, simple and autonomous process. Disciplinary actions should not very strictly follow the law evidence but decide on the principles of equity. Transfer of judges to ward of public criticism in certain cases has to be discouraged.
As discussed the Contempt of Courts Act need to be amended and healthy critique encouraged. Judges should be made financially accountable and a statutory code of conduct enacted.
One must keep in mind that the lawyers form a part of the judicial system of the country. Today’s lawyer is tomorrow’s Judge. It is essential to impart the values of integrity amongst the lawyers and students of law. Besides the Bar should take necessary steps to bring the corrupt judges to justice and assist in the formation of public opinion.
Judges cannot continue to act like ‘Uncrowned philosopher Kings’. The judicial system serves the people in a democracy and is not above the Law. And law and morality should not be considered independent of each other. Integrity, impartiality, high morality, honesty, freedom from bias and influence, and a keen sense of social responsibility are a few important qualities must in a Judge.
It cannot be said that every judge is corrupt dishonest. There are many honorable judges in our system, who on a day to day basis, try to fight the sleaze that is eating the judiciary from inside-out. They have also become the victims of this once upright institution. But they are not enough alone to bring about any changes. Media and public pressure will play an instrumental role in the transformation and revolution of the judiciary. The recent discontent shown by the public has stirred the sleeping government to act in this direction.
Groups like Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms are putting in tremendous efforts to meet the problem of Judicial Accountability head on. Today every democracy recognizes the institutional value of Judicial Accountability. Unless the Indian government moves on from the ancient and out dated laws with regards to Judicial Accountability, the judiciary is headed towards unfathomable decline. It is only possible to fight the disease of corruption by extensive procedural reforms.
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No more can the judges hide behind the cloak of judicial independence and secrecy which is an allergy to democracy. It is aptly said that independence of judiciary is not the property of the judiciary, but a commodity to be held by the judiciary in the trust of the public. [39
To sum up, I would like to refer the following lines-
O, it is excellent
To have a giant’ strength,
But it is tyrranous,
To use it like a giant. [40

The Accountability Of The Judiciary
“Ironically the Higher Judiciary in India has powers of control over every organ under the Constitution but there exists no effective method of disciplining its own members.” [1
The Preamble to our Constitution declares India is a ‘Democratic’ State. This broadly means that we have a government by the people, of the people and for the people’. It follows from this principle that, the Government should be accountable for all its acts or omissions to those for whom it exists.
The third branch of the government- the judiciary. The power that Judiciary enjoys, the role that it plays in our lives and the onerous task that it performs is beyond comprehension. Infact, it would be no exaggeration to say that of the three branches of the Government, Judiciary is perhaps of the greatest significance to the people, it being closest to them in the sense that anybody (even an ordinary citizen) can approach the Judiciary when he has any grievance.
Judicial Accountability can be defined as the costs that a judge expects to incur in case his/her behavior and/or his/her decisions deviate too much from a generally recognized standard, in this case referring to the letter of the law.
Judicial independence was not intended to be a shield from public scrutiny. Judicial independence is not only a necessary condition for the impartiality of judges, it can also endanger it. Higher judiciary in our country is the only institution that is virtually not accountable and at the same time enjoys exceptional constitutional protection and formidable weaponry such as contempt of court to silence the critics. [2] Accountability of the judiciary in respect of its judicial functions and orders is safeguarded by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of orders. But there is no mechanism for accountability for serious judicial misconduct, for disciplining errant judges. [3] 


Realizing the important role that judiciary plays, and the possibility of misuse of the power conferred, the Constitution-makers primarily made two provisions (those relating to the appointment and removal of judges) which ensured that Legislature and the Executive, the other two branches of the government (which are directly or indirectly responsible to the people) had some kind of control over the Judiciary. Here it would be interesting to mention the following cases

1st Phase- The Judges Case One:

In 1982, the matter of appointment of High Court judges came before the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v Union of India [4] The main question considered by the court was: of the various functionaries participating in the process of appointment of a High Court judge whose opinion amongst the various participants should have primacy in the process of selection?
The majority took the view that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India (and that of the Chief Justice of a High Court) were merely consultative, and that the power of appointment resides solely and exclusively in the Central Government” and that the Central Government could override the opinions given by the Constitutional functionaries. The majority in Gupta gave a literal meaning to the word ‘consultation’ in Art 124(2) and 217(1). In reality this view made consultation with the Chief Justice inconsequential in the matter of appointment of the High Court Judges.
The observation of Bhagwati J. on the question of accountability-“The reason why the power of appointment of judges has been left to the Executive appears to be that the Executive is responsible to the Legislature, and through the Legislature it is answerable to the people, who are the consumers of justice. The power of appointment is not entrusted to the CJI because they do not have any accountability to the people and even if any wrong appointment has been made, they are not liable to account to anyone for such appointment.”
But going by developments that have taken place and the experiences that have been encountered, both the provisions have either been substantially modified or reduced to mere theory.

2nd Phase- The Judges Case Two:

Consequently, the matter once again came up for consideration before a 9 Judge bench in the case of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India [5] The Court emphasized that the question has to be considered in the context of achieving “the constitutional purpose of selecting the best…to ensure the independence of judiciary…”
Deliberating on the issue, the Court pointed out that this provision of ‘consultation’ with the Chief Justice was introduced because of the realization that the Chief Justice is best equipped to know and assess the worth of the candidate and his suitability for appointment.
Accordingly, the Court has ruled that “in the choice of a candidate suitable for appointment, the opinion of the Chief Justice of India should have the greatest weight…..the selection should be based on a participatory consultative process in which the Executive has the power to act as a mere check on the power of the Chief Justice
The Judiciary has for all practical purposes had become its own appointing authority. The Supreme Court replaced the Executive primacy with that of the CJI, which in effect has done away with the role of the Executive. The Collegium that decides the matter lacks transparency and is likely to be considered a cabal. Here the obvious question that arises is, in the absence of substantially any role of any other body, who are the CJI and other members of the Judiciary answerable to? Consumers of justice being people, whether the Judiciary is in any way answerable to the people? The Majority in the Second Judges case tried to answer it-“The CJI and the Chief Justice of the High Court, being responsible to the functioning of the Courts, have to face the consequence of any unsuitable appointment which gives rise to the criticism. Similarly, the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, whose participation are involved in the functioning of the Courts and in the selection process bear the consequences and become accountable.”
The researcher submits that this reasoning is not only insufficient and incomplete but also unsatisfactory. Besides, the little that it says in support of its stand, the argument itself seems to be paradoxical if we look at the reality. The Judiciary has taken a rather too strict a stand against the writers who have criticized the judges or their judgments (the Contempt of Court Act 1971 punishes the scandalizing of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that Fundamental Right of the citizens to of free speech and expression has not abolished the offense of scandalizing the Court). [6] The symbolic punishment given to Arundhati Roy [7] and the more recent controversy surrounding Sabarwal J. and the subsequent action taken by the Delhi High Court against the “erring” editors of a leading local newspaper are points in case. [8] 
Now the 2nd major area of focus is what action can be taken if a judge misuses or abuses his power, acts with negligence or contrary to the interest of the people.
In this regard the Constitution has laid down only one provision- Article 124 whereby it lays down that a judge can be removed from his office by following an elaborate procedure, on the ground of ‘proved misbehavior or incapacity.’ The points to be pondered over here are:
This is the only provision on what action can be taken against an errant Judge.
The action that I envisaged here is a drastic one, that of removal from office.
The procedure mentioned here being so elaborate (being analogous to the impeachment) signifies that ‘proved misbehavior or incapacity’ should be of a very high degree.
Not only does this provision lay down too complex a procedure, but it also fails to take care of the deviant acts not amounting to ‘misbehavior or incapacity’. Added to this Ramaswami J. controversy [9] is a case in point as it reflects the deep anomalies and loopholes with which this provision is ridden.
Hence while the existing provision is insufficient in so far as erroneous acts not amounting to ‘misbehavior or incapacity’ have not been taken care of, the remedy that does exist is rendered useless by the loopholes that have been exploited.
Thus (practically) answerable to no one and for all intent and purposes having no efficient mechanism to discipline the judges, the Judiciary has become its own master. At least theoretically it can be said that this will lead to abuse of power.
But having said this do we really urgently need to reform the legal provisions relating to Judiciary? Do the apprehensions have any real basis? Several instances will show that these are not mere apprehensions.
In 1958 the Law Commission of India in its 14th Report on the Reform of Judicial Administration submitted that-“It is widely felt that communal and regional considerations have prevailed in making the selection of judges… talent among the judges of the High Courts has not always found its way to the Supreme Court…We are concerned that the views expressed to us have show a well founded and acute public satisfaction at these appointments”. While this report was complied at a time when the Executive had a significant role to play in the judicial appointments, it is submitted that the position has not changed much (as will be clear from the illustrations that follow) after the Second Judges Case.
In 1964, Committee on Prevention of Corruption remarked that it had been informed by Vigilance and Special Police Establishment, that the corruption is rampant at the lower levels and in some place, it has spread to the higher ranks.
Then we have the 1993 case of Ramaswami J. who was sought to be removed from office and who after having been found guilty of misbehavior in misappropriating and misusing public property, by a Committee constituted under the Judges’ Inquiry Act 1968, still managed to go scot free because the motion in Parliament of his removal failed as the ruling majority abstained from voting for his removal.
Again the charges of misconduct against two sitting judges of the Supreme Court were made in 1997 and 2000. In the first case, the judge in question was due by seniority to be appointed as the Chief Justice and an in house committee of the Supreme Court Judges is reported to have considered the charges. But the judge was recommended for appointment as the CJI by the outgoing CJI. In the second case which related to a CJI though considerable publicity was given to the charges, no action was taken either within or outside the Court.
In the absence of an effective remedy for removal of a judge, the Bar of the Bombay High Court resorted to the unconventional method of disciplining by passing the resolutions against them to resign and requesting the Chief Justice of the High Court not to assign work to them.
On another occasion, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court was charged with misconduct by the Bar. Going by the earlier experiences the Bar had no other option but to resort to extra-constitutional way out. They made an application to the CJI to requesting the CJI to seek his resignation. The Chief Justice of that High Court under the advice of the CJI tendered the resignation.
Judicial accountability has today become the catch word all over the world. The judges can no longer oppose calls for greater accountability on the ground that it will impinge upon their independence. Independence and accountability must be sufficiently balanced so as to strengthen judicial integrity for effective judicial impartiality.

Discussion Of The Conduct Of The Judges In The Legislature:

“In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.” [10] Neither in Parliament nor in a State Legislature a discussion can take place with respect to the conduct of the Supreme Court in discharge of his duties.
Articles 121 and 211 provide immunity to the members of Higher Judiciary, with respect to the conduct of the Judges in the discharge of their duties. Article 211 amounts to an absolute constitutional prohibition against any decision in the Legislature of a State in respect of the judicial conduct of the Supreme Court or of the High Court. Article 121 on the other hand provides for a general rule that no discussion shall take place in the Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of the High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the judge under the circumstances stated in the Constitution. Thus, reading Article 121 and 211 together, it is clear that the judicial conduct of a judge can not be discussed in the State Legislature. It can be in Parliament only, upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge. The Constitutional makers attached so much importance to the independence of judiciary that they thought necessary to place them beyond any controversy except in the manner provided in Article 121.
The fact that Article 211 appears under a topic dealing with “Procedure Generally” cannot mean that the prohibition prescribed by it is not mandatory. In trying to appreciate the full significance of this provision, Article 121 and 211 should be read together. It is true that Article 194(2) in terms provide for immunity of action in any court in respect of a speech made by a member or a vote given by him in the Legislative Assembly. Undoubtedly, the Speaker would not permit a member to contravene Article 211, but, if inadvertently or otherwise, a speech is made within the legislature which contravenes Article 211, the Constitution-makers have given protection to such speech from any action in any court. The House itself may and would, no doubt, take action against the member. [11] 

Removal Of A Judge:

“A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.” [12] 
“Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.” [13] 
“All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.” [14] 
“Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.” [15] 
The manner of removal of a Judge, as brought out and made clear by Constitutional provisions, SC interpretations and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969, stands summed up in Krishna Swami v. UOI [16] as follows, “Every judge of the Supreme Court & High Court on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner provided in Cls. (4) & (5) of Art. 124. The law made by the Parliament under Art. 124(5), namely the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, (and Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969 framed there under) are to be read along with Article 124(4), to find out the constitutional scheme….for the removal of a judge. The law so made under Art. 124(5), provides that any accusation against a sitting Judge to initiate the process of his removal has to be by not less than minimum number of members of the Parliament specified in the Act, all other method being excluded. On initiation of the process, the Speaker/Chairman has to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to act, the matter ends there…..otherwise on a consideration of the material available and after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, forms opinion that a prima facie case is made out, he constitutes a Committee in accordance with s.3(2) of the Act. If this …..Committee….. records a finding that a Judge is not guilty, the process ends there…..If the finding of the Inquiry Committee is that the Judge is guilty, then the Parliament considers the motion for removal of the Judge along with the Committee’s Report and other available materials including the cause, if any, shown by the Judge concerned against his removal for which he has to be given an opportunity after the submission of the report to the Speaker/Chairman under s. 4(2) of the Act…..If the Parliament does not adopt a motion for removal of the Judge, the process ends there…If the motion is adopted by the requisite majority of the Parliament, culminating in the order for removal of the Judge by the President of India under Art.124(4), then only the Judge shall have remedy of Judicial Review available on the permissible grounds against the order of removal….”


In mater of appointment, a lot has been said about the dangers of substituting absolute Executive authority with absolute ‘Chief Justice Authority’. It is important to have a more important broad based appointing body in the legal system, incorporating undoubtedly the higher judicial functionaries but also giving representation to some outside elements form the categories of eminent jurists, academics and both the ruling executive and the opposition. Moreover this process would certainly be more transparent and open. In such broad based appointing body at least two leading members of the bar must find representation. The manner of selection/ nomination of those persons should be carefully thought out to ensure objectivity and absence of conflict of interest.
The second crucial aspect which cannot be separated from the first is the vital necessity of a workable mechanism for regulating judicial conduct, taking corrective action and if necessary disciplining the errant judges shot of and up to removal.
Unless one puts in place a reasonable, internal, fair, expeditious and effective in house regulatory regime short of impeachment, allegations against judges will always be on the rise.
The general dissatisfaction with the Courts self appointed role in appointment and transfer of Judges has led to suggestions that it is high time that a National Judicial Commission should be appointed which would not only consist of high judicial members but also other non-judicial members and which would make recommendations for such appointments. The suggestion for a National Judicial Commission has been made by the 80th and 121st reports of the law commission of India. [17] A constitutional amendment (67th Amendment) bill 1990 was formulated by the ministry of Justice in 1990 for setting up such a body but the bill lapsed on the dissolution of the parliament. [18] 
The independence of judiciary is an important concept being the basic principle of the constitution but what has to be realized is that it is not an end in itself but only a means to achieve an end. The end is to secure efficient, expeditious and impartial delivery of justice. The main intention behind this principle is that the people should get justice, irrespective of their status. This principle is required to instill confidence of the people in its Justice Delivery System. Confidence is very important. Our society is usually peaceful, not because there is a police force and lawyers to take you to the court. It is because people respect the courts and the laws they apply. If, however, people loose confidence in the courts and think that they would not receive a fair hearing, they might disrespect the law generally.
So any new step towards revamping the Judicial System should aim at balancing in the best possible manner judicial independence and judicial accountability.

Judicial Accountability in India
(A) Nature And Meaning Of Judicial Accountability
The word ‘accountable’ as defined in the Oxford Dictionary means ‘responsible for your own decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked’. Accountability is the sine qua non of democracy. Transparency facilitates accountability. No public institution or public functionary is exempt from accountability although the manner of enforcing accountability may vary depending upon the nature of the office and the functions discharged by the office holder. The judiciary, an essential wing of the State, is also accountable. Judicial accountability, however, is not on the same plane as the accountability of the executive or the legislature or any other public institution. Indian polity is under severe strain. Faith of the people in the quality, integrity and efficiency of governmental institutions stands seriously eroded.
They turn to the judiciary as the last bastion of hope. But of late, even here things are getting increasingly disturbing and one is unfortunately no more in a position to say that all is well with the judiciary. The independence and impartiality of the judiciary is one of the hallmarks of the democratic system of the government. Only an impartial and independent judiciary can protect the rights of the individual and can provide equal justice without fear and favor. The constitution of India provides many privileges to maintain the independence of judiciary. If the Preamble to our Constitution be regarded as the reflection of the aspirations and spirit of the people, then one thing that even a layman will note is that among the various goals that the Constitution-makers intended to secure for the citizens, “JUSTICE- Social, Economic & Political” has been mentioned before the rest.” No person, however high, is above the law. No institution is exempt from accountability, including the judiciary. Accountability of the judiciary in respect of its judicial functions and orders is vouchsafed by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of orders. What is the mechanism for accountability for serious judicial misconduct, for disciplining errant judges? Our Constitution provides for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courtfor proved misbehaviour or proved incapacity, by what is popularly called the process of impeachment, whereunder two thirds of the members of each House of Parliament can vote for the removal of the judge. So far, only one impeachment proceeding has been initiated against a Supreme Court judge. It failed because Congress abstained from voting and consequently two-thirds majority was not available.
It is now generally accepted that the present impeachment process is cumbersome, time consuming and tends to get politicized. It needs to be reformed urgently.

Need For Judicial Accountability
“All power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that from the people and for the people, all springs and all must exist”. In a ‘democratic republic’ power with accountability of the individual enjoying it, is essential to avert disaster for any democratic system. The accountability must be comprehensive to include not only the politicians, but also the bureaucrats, judges and everyone invested with power. Power and position in a democracy is depicted as attendant with responsibility, and every incumbent of a public office must remain constantly accountable to the people, who are the repository of political sovereignty. The judicial system deals with the administration of justice through the agency of courts. Judges are the human stuff which presides over the courts. They are not merely visible symbols of courts; they are actually their representatives in flesh and blood. The manners in which judges discharge their duties determine the image of courts and the creditability of judicial system itself. In India from time immemorial judges have been held in high esteem and revered as super humans but coming across recent incidents in Bihar (like killing of an under trial in the court itself and lynching a suspected thief to death) depicts that frustrated by the failure to get justice, people are slowly losing faith in judiciary and are taking law into their hands. This is highly deplorable. A need definitely is there to make judiciary accountable, as derogation of values in judiciary is far more dangerous than in any other wing of the government as judiciary has to act as the guardian of our constitution. Judicial accountability and answerability of the judges is not a new concept. Several countries in their constitutions have already provided for ensuring accountability of judiciary. This to prevent concentration of power in the hands of a single organ of the state especially in countries where judicial activism interferes with and invades into the domain of other organs. But at the same time Judicial independence is a pre- requisite for every judge whose oath of office requires him to act without fear or favour, affection of ill- will and to uphold the constitution and laws of the country.

Code Of Conduct For Judges
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia , Chief Justice of India said: “When we talk of ethics, the judges normally comment upon ethics among politicians, students and professors and others. But I would say that for a judge too, ethics, not only constitutional morality but even ethical morality, should be the base…”

The well-known legal luminaries including Former Chief Justice of India S.Venkataramaiah and Former Judge of the Supreme Court D.A.Desai and another Former Judge of the Supreme Court Chennappa Reddy have expressed the view that if all the sections of the society are accountable for their actions, there is no reason why the Judges should not be so. Former Chief Justice, Verma recognized the validity of this plea when he remarked on one occasion, “These days we (Judges) are telling everyone what they should do but who is to tell us? We have task of enforcing the rule of law, but does not exempt and even exonerate us from following it”. For proper implementation of this concept of judicial accountability, it is necessary that the Judges should follow a code of conduct which may be broadly called as ethics for Judges.
Code of Ethics of a Judge:- 
1. Judicial decision to be honest:- It is absolutely essential that in order that the Judge’s life is full of public confidence in their role in the society, the judicial decision is to be honest and fair. No judicial decision is honest unless it is decided in response to an honest opinion formed in the matrix of the judges proficient of law and fact. However, the perception of an individual judge may be wrong. But a wrong decision honestly made does not make that decision dishonest. A decision becomes dishonest if not decided on judicial conviction of fairness, honesty and neutrality.

2. No man can be a judge in his own cause:- The basic code of ethics is the principle that no man can be judge in his own cause. The principle confines not merely to the cause where the Judge is an actual party to a case, but also applies to a case in which he has interest. A Judge should not adjudicate in a case if he has got interest therein. Judge do require a degree of detachment and objectivity in judicial dispensation. They being duty bound by the oath of office taken by them in adjudicating the disputes brought before the court in accordance therewith, Judges must remain impartial, should be known by all people to be impartial. This is made clear by the Supreme Court.

3. Administer justice:- Judges must not fear to administer justice. “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum” that is “let justice be done though the heavens fall” should be followed as a motto by a Judge.

4. Equal opportunity:- Parties to the dispute be treated equally and in accordance with the principles of law and equity. A judge does not belong to any person or section or division or group. He is the judge of all people. In the courts of law there cannot be double standard-one for the highly and another for the rest. A Judge should not have any concern with personalities who are parties to the case but only with merits. He must treat the parties to the dispute equally, giving them an equal opportunity during the trial. The Rt.Hon.Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England, said that it is “essential to the proper administration of justice that every party should have an opportunity of being heard, so that he may put forward his own views and support them by argument and answer the views put forward by his opponents”.The Supreme Court said in the celebrated case “No man’s right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views”.In classical language of metaphor, the God of Justice sits on a golden throne, but at his feet sit two lions-‘law and equity’. A Judge will fail to discharge his duty if he disregards their presence and participation.

5. Maintenance of distance from relatives:- Since judging is not a profession but a way of life, the judge must distance himself from the parties to the dispute and their 
lawyers during the conduct of the trial. One can notice now a days the growth of a new caste in legal profession who thrive not by intellectual or professional capabilities but by utilizing their close connection with the judges. The growth of this suspicious trend can be checked if practicing lawyers and sitting judges avoid meeting frequently in private. Persons who occupy high public offices must take care to see that those who claim to be close to them are not allowed to exploit that closeness, alleged or real.

6. Too much of activity and participation in social functions be avoided:-It is often said that as a result of a very considerable amount of ordinary social activity, a Judge may become identified with people and points of view, and litigants may think they may not get fair trial. To repel that feeling, a Judge should avoid too much of social activity. Again, Judges should be very selective in attending social functions. Judges in England and USA generally decline such participation. If they attend even a private function, they ask for the list of invites.

The Supreme Court in Ram Pratap Sharma v Daya Nand issued a note of caution to the effect that it is proper for a Judge not to accept any invitation and hospitality of any business or commercial organization or of any political party or of any club or organization run or sectarian, communal or parochial line.

7. Media Publicity be avoided:-As far as possible a Judge should keep off the media. He should refrain from expressing his views in media on matters either pending before him or likely to appear for judicial consideration. Else he may be accused of prejudging the issue and his neutrality may be questioned thereby. Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice of England since 1971 to 1980, said that “the best judge is the man who should not court publicity and should work in such a way that they don’t catch the eyes of the newsmen”. Lord Hailsham said that the “best judges are those who do not find their names in the The Daily Mail and still, who abhor it”.

Lack Of judicial Accountability In India
The framers of the Indian 
Constitution would not have imagined that within 60 years of the framing of the Constitution, the Indian Judiciary would emerge as the most powerful institution of the State. The Constitution established the High Courts and the Supreme Court as watchdog institutions, independent of the executive and the legislature, to not merely dispense justice, but also to ensure that the executive and the legislature did not exceed the authority conferred upon them by the Constitution. Thus, the Judiciary was given the powers to interpret the laws and the Constitution, and also to strike down executive action which violated any law or the fundamental rights of citizens. It was also the authority to examine whether laws framed by Parliament conformed to the Constitution and declare them void if they violated it. By a creative interpretation of the provision authorizing the Parliament to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court in 1973 also acquired the power to strike down even constitutional amendments which were held by the Court to violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Many laws and some constitutional amendments have been struck down by the Courts during this period.

Through all this, the superior courts in India have emerged as perhaps the most powerful courts in the world, exercising virtually Imperial & unchecked powers. While executive action and even legislation could often be struck down by the courts, the directions of the courts, sometimes issued without even notice to the affected parties, were beyond question, and had to be obeyed by all executive officers on pain of contempt of court. Of course, often these powers were wisely exercised to correct gross executive inaction.

While the Court was acquiring these powers, by an even more inventive (called purposive) interpretation of the provision regarding appointment of judges by the government, it took over the power of appointment of judges. Thus judges of the 
High Court and Supreme Court are now appointed by a collegium of senior judges of the Supreme Court. The judiciary has thus become like a selfperpetrating oligarchy. There is no system followed in the selection of judges and there is no transparency in the system. In particular, no regard is given to examining the record or credentials of judges in their ideological adherence to the constitutional ideals of a secular, socialist democratic republic or their understanding of or sensitivity towards the common people of the country who are poor, marginalized and unable to fight for their rights in the courts.

Thus, the courts in India enjoy virtually absolute and unchecked power unrivalled by any Court in the world. In these circumstances, it is absolutely vital that judges of the superior judiciary be accountable for their performance and their conduct – whether it be for corruption or for disregard of constitutional values and the rights of citizens. Unfortunately, neither the 
Constitution, nor any other law has created any institution or system to examine the performance of judges or examine complaints against them. The Constitution provides that High Court and Supreme Court judges cannot be removed except by impeachment. That process requires signatures of 100 MPs of the House of People or 50 MPs of the Council of States for its initiation. If a motion containing charges of serious misconduct with the requisite signatures is submitted, and admitted by the Speaker of the House of People or the Chairperson of the Council of States, an Inquiry Committee of 3 judges is constituted to hold a trial of the judge.
Only if he is found guilty, the motion is placed before each House of Parliament where it has to be passed by a 2/3 majority of each House. Our experience has shown that it is practically impossible to remove a Judge through impeachment even if one is somehow able to get documentary evidence of serious misconduct. This is because MPs and political parties to which they belong are very reluctant to take on a sitting Judge because virtually all of them have pending cases in courts. The judges often behave like a trade union and do not take kindly to brethren being accused of misconduct. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to get an impeachment off the ground unless the matter has become a big public scandal. Only in those cases, is it possible to get enough MPs to sign an impeachment motion. The only impeachment of a Judge to have gone far was that of Justice V. Ramaswami in the early 90’s. After the motion was presented, a Judges Inquiry Committee found him guilty of several charges of misconduct when the matter went up for voting to Parliament.
The ruling Congress Party directed all their MPs to abstain from voting. Thus, though the motion was unanimously passed in the Lok Sabha, it did not get the support of the majority of the total membership of the House and, therefore, failed. The Judge remained in office till he retired, but was not assigned any judicial work by the then Chief Justice. Only last month, we have seen a second motion against a Judge of the Calcutta High Court signed and submitted to the Chairman of the Council of States. Allegations and charges against a Judge even when supported by documentary evidence, rarely get any coverage in the media because of the widespread fear of contempt of court. The contempt law in India allows any judge of the High Court and Supreme Court to charge any one with criminal contempt and send him to jail, on the ground that he/she has “scandalized the Court or lowered the authority of the Court”. What “scandalizes or lowers” the authority of a Court is also the subjective judgment of each Judge. In Arundhati Roy’s (the well known writer) case, a bench of 2 judges of the Supreme Court charged her with contempt and sent her to jail merely because she criticized the Court in her affidavit.
Earlier, the Supreme Court has declared that a person charged with “scandalizing the Court” will not be permitted to prove the truth of his allegation against a Judge. Though Parliament has recently amended the Contempt of Courts Act to expressly allow truth as a defence, nothing has been done to prevent judges against whom allegations are made from charging the person with contempt and hauling him to jail. The criminal contempt jurisdiction of the Court and the cavalier manner in which it is exercised, is another example of the enormous and unchecked power of the superior courts in India Our campaign for Judicial Accountability has since long been demanding that the courts’ power to punish for “scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court” must be taken away by legislation. Of course, this demand has been stoutly resisted by the courts who claim that deleting this provision would greatly encourage baseless allegations and abuse of judges by disgruntled litigants and would thereby erode public confidence in the courts.
But then, there is the law of civil and criminal defamation to protect judges against vilification. Moreover, public confidence in the courts as in any person or institution, is generated or eroded by the actions of the courts and not by any baseless allegations by disgruntled litigants. However, with such fierce opposition by the courts, the legislature has not had the courage to delete this provision from the Contempt of Courts Act. In 1991, the Supreme Court by another ingenious judgment, involving Justice Veeraswami (the father-in-law of Ramaswami), who was Chief Justice of the Tamil Nadu High Court who was caught with assets, vastly disproportionate to his income, laid down that no judge of a superior court could be subjected to a criminal investigation without the written permission of the Chief Justice of India.
This judgment has been use to prevent the investigation and prosecution of many judges against whom there was documentary evidence of corruption, fraud, misappropriation, etc. This has also increased the impunity of judges who have now got used to the feeling that they can get away with any kind of misconduct or even criminal conduct, without any fear of any criminal action or action for removal. Armed additionally with the power of contempt, they also have little fear of public exposure. All this makes for an alarming picture of lack of accountability of the higher judiciary in India. You cannot practically take any disciplinary or criminal action against misconduct or crimes committed by judges.
If you expose them publicly, you run the risk of contempt. This lack of accountability coupled with the enormous unchecked powers that the courts have acquired and are exercising make the judiciary a very dangerous institution and indeed a serious threat to Indian democracy. This lack of accountability has led to considerable corruption of the higher judiciary which is evident from the recent spate of judicial scandals which have erupted in India. The recent report of TI on corruption perception index shows that the judiciary is perceived to be the second most corrupt institution in India after the Police.

Judicial Accountability And Discipline
The judiciary needs to be independent of outside influence, particularly of political and economic entities such as government agencies or industry associations. But judicial independence does not mean that judges and court officials should have free rein to behave as they please. Indeed, judicial independence is founded on public trust and, to maintain it, judges must uphold the highest standards of integrity and be held accountable to them. Where judges or court personnel are suspected of breaching the public’s trust, fair measures must be in place to detect, investigate and sanction corrupt practices.
1. Accountability to whom and for what?
In everyday terms, accountability is simply the ability to hold an individual or institution responsible for its actions. The question for the judiciary is accountability to whom and for what? Broadly speaking, the judiciary must be accountable to the law, in the sense that the decisions made are in accordance with the law and are not arbitrary. Like other branches of government, it must also be accountable to the general public it serves.
2. How to achieve judicial accountability?
Fostering a culture of independence, impartiality and accountability among judges is a vital step towards ensuring the overall integrity of the judiciary. This is particularly the case in countries where there is a lack of accountability in other branches of government. Developing codes of judicial conduct can also provide an important means of fostering judicial accountability, since they serve as both a guide to and a measure of judicial conduct. Strong and independent judges associations, meanwhile, can provide a safe point of reference for judges,allowing them to interact with the state in an accountable, yet robustly independent manner. Ultimately, though, the judiciary must be responsible to the citizens of a country, and civil society actors, including the media and NGOs, must play an enhanced role in demanding judicial accountability.
3. Detecting corruption in judicial systems
Judges are expected to take decisions about breaches of law by individuals, governments and companies, but what happens if it is the judge who breaks the law? While judicial independence requires that judges have some limited measure of immunity and that they should be protected from trivial or vexatious complaints, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that corruption by judges or court personnel is detected, investigated and properly sanctioned. Incorporating whistleblower protection or anti-corruption telephone hotlines as part of judicial systems can help improve detection of corruption in the judiciary. It is often courageous members of the public or individuals of integrity within the judicial system itself who speak out against specific instances of corruption. Such action can be encouraged by developing a confidential and rigorous formal complaints procedure so that lawyers, court users, prosecutors, police, media and civil society organisations can report suspected or actual corruption in a judicial system.
4. Ensuring effective judicial discipline
There are different models for judicial discipline, though all models tend to operate at two levels: first, a disciplinary system that can admonish, fine or suspend judges for misdemeanours; and, second, a system of removal of judges for serious misconduct, including corruption. It is essential that any disciplinary mechanism is independent, fair and rigorous. In particular, a judge has the right to a fair hearing, legal representation and an appeal in any disciplinary matter. In some instances, an appellate body or judicial council may have disciplinary functions. In others, supreme courts may be responsible for disciplining lower court judges, while supreme court judges themselves may be removed by parliament. All types of procedures should be balanced to, on the one hand, protect judicial independence and, on the other, provide accountability to command public confidence. Importantly, mechanisms for judges’ removal from office must be fair, transparent and take the principle of security of judicial tenure into account.
5. Right To Information
In the light of the above discussion, and in the absence of a proper, specific law, to effectively check the power and scope of ‘judicial activism’ or laying down codes of conduct (based on the call for the accountability of the judges), the Right to Information Act, at least, as of now, seems to be a best available tool in dealing with some (if not all) aspects of the demand for a more accountable and transparent judiciary . The learned Judges of the SC, on the proposed amendments in to the RTI Act have observed:-

“Transparency or openness is an accepted principle of democracy and good governance. A distinguished American judge Louis Brandeis had said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant and electricity is the best policeman”. The ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ indicated in Lord Nolan Committee’s report on standards in public life include objectivity, accountability and openness.”

“After all public power is derived from ‘we the people of India…’ Its exercise must be subject to legitimate scrutiny by the people who are the source of that power. The people have a participatory role in a republican democracy as they are “the keepers of the 
Constitution”. In such circumstances there is no justification for such any amendment to the RTI Act being proposed which seeks to unreasonably and unconstitutionally restrict the peoples right to know what their public servants are doing on their behalf.”

Having said this, the reaction of the Judiciary, as far as the application of the Act on itself is concerned, strongly recommending that it should be left out of its ambit, seems preposterous. If the amendments suggested by SC are enacted by Parliament, they will strike at the root of the safeguard contained in the Act: all public authorities, including courts, are subject to the jurisdiction of an independent appellate body..

This Act should be seen as only a step towards enforcing the accountability of the Judiciary directly to the people, until a specific and more detailed law is enacted in this regard.
6. Key recommendations
Limited immunity for actions relating to judicial duties should be in place. This allows judges to make their decisions free from fear of civil suit; though immunity should not apply in corruption (or other criminal)cases.

Disciplinary rules should ensure that the judiciary carries out initial rigorous investigations of all allegations. An independent body must investigate complaints against judges and give reasons for its decisions. Strict and exacting standards should apply to the removal of a judge. Removal mechanisms for judges of all levels must be clear, transparent and fair, and reasons need to be given for decisions. If there is a finding of corruption, a judge is liable to prosecution. A judge should have the right to a fair hearing, legal representation and an appeal in any disciplinary matter.

A code of judicial conduct serves as a guide to and measure of judicial conduct, and should be developed and implemented by the judiciary. Breaches of the code must be investigated and sanctioned by a judicial body. A confidential and rigorous formal complaints procedure is vital so that 
lawyers, court users, prosecutors, police, media and civil society organisations can report suspected or actual breaches of the code of conduct, or corruption by judges, court administrators or lawyers. An independent judges association, elected by judges, should represent them in their interactions with the state and its other organs. It should be accessible to all judges; support individual judges on ethical matters; and provide a safe point of reference for judges who fear that they may have been compromised in some way.

Judging The Judges (Case Laws)
Recently, the judiciary has been greatly in the news, but for all the wrong reasons. A string of judicial scandals have erupted in the recent past, starting with Chief Justice Sabharwal’s case, and then going on to the Ghaziabad district court Provident fund scam, the 15 lakh cash-at-judges-door scam of Chandigarh, and the Justice Soumitra Sen case of Calcutta. Some of these have arisen due to the lack of transparency in the selection and appointment of judges. In many cases, persons of doubtful integrity come to be appointed and confirmed through a totally secretive, ad hoc, arbitrary and non-transparent process of selection and appointment through a Collegium of judges of the 
High Court and the Supreme Court. Unfortunately however, we are finding that these rotten eggs who come to be appointed, get confirmed, even when they are found by the Collegium to have been of doubtful integrity, and are not removed even when a judge's committee has found them guilty of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, and even after the Chief Justice of India has recommended their impeachment selection, appointment and removal of judges.
A historic non-impeachment
1. Case Of Justice V. Ramaswami
May 11, 1993 will be remembered as a black day for Parliament and for the judiciary in this country. For on that day, 205 Lok Sabha members belonging to the Congress(I) and its allies sabotaged the impeachment mo tion against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court by abdicating their constitutional duty of voting for or against and thus defeating the motion by ensuring that it did not receive the support of an absolute majority of the total membership of the House. Each one of the 196 MPs, who voted, all belonging to the Opposition parties, voted for the removal of the judge. Thus, despite the motion for removal being passed unanimously by the members who voted, it failed, bringing to a close the more-than-two-year old proceedings for the removal of Ramaswami. The result, therefore, is that despite a high-power inquirycommittee of three eminent judges having come to the conclusion that Ramaswami was guilty of several acts of gross misbehaviour which warranted his removal, the judge is still entitled to discharge judicial functions from the highest court of the land. It is another matter that after the impeachment mo tion failed, Ramaswami was persuaded to resign by the Congress(I) which belatedly realised that it would have to pay a heavy price for being seen to have supported a corrupt judge. The failure of the motion, especially after the tortuous course it went through, raises several grave issues for the future of the administration of justice in this country and indeed for probity in public life in general.

The Case Of Justice Ashok Kumar
In the case of Justice Ashok Kumar, who was appointed an additional judge in April 2003, the Collegium of three senior judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided not to confirm him as a permanent judge in August 2005 because of adverse reports regarding his integrity. Despite this, he was given extensions as additional judge, and finally came to be confirmed in February 2007 on the Chief Justice’s recommendation, which was made without consulting other members of the Collegium of judges, in complete violation of several judgements of the Supreme Court. These had clearly laid down that in a matter of appointment of judges, the Chief Justice cannot act alone and must go along with the majority view of the Collegium of senior judges of the Supreme Court. The 9 Judge judgments also provided that an appointment made without consulting the Collegium was challengeable and could be struck down in a judicial proceeding. The memorandum of procedure lay down by the law ministry also made it abundantly clear that in such matters the Chief Justice must consult the Collegium of senior judges, as well as those other judges who have come from the same High Court in which the proposed appointment is to be made. Thus, Justice Ashok Kumar's appointment was clearly contrary to the 
Constitution, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court itself. Though Justice Ashok Kumar's confirmation as a permanent judge was challenged by senior advocates of the Supreme Court, unfortunately the court has upheld his confirmation on the basis of very dubious reasoning. While the Court berated the previous Chief Justices for having given extensions to Justice Ashok Kumar as additional judge for political considerations, it found nothing wrong with his confirmation, despite the fact that it was done without consulting the Collegium and after his integrity was found doubtful by the previous Collegium of judges when it had considered the matter. Moreover, nothing had changed subsequently to cast any doubt on the finding of the previous Collegium. Thus the Supreme Court, missed the opportunity to judicially correct the administrative illegality in confirming a judge whose integrity had been found to be doubtful, and that too without consulting the Collegium of senior judges of the Court. Such judicial behaviour of the Supreme Court only confirms the growing public perception that the recent crisis of credibility and integrity of the higher courts is largely a result of improper appointments due to extraneous considerations which are facilitated by the totally nontransparent manner in which judges are selected and appointed.

Arundhati Roy’s Case
The facts were these: After the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Narmada Dam case, there was a public protest outside the Supreme Court in which Medha Patkar (the leader of the anti-Dam movement in India) and Arundhati Roy participated. A couple of
lawyers (probably on the hint of the Court itself) filed a contempt petition against Patkar, Roy and Mr. Prashant Bhushan alleging that we had raised abusive slogans against the Court. The lawyers’ contempt application, apart from being in grotesque language, also contained palpably absurd allegations that Roy and Patkar (who can hardly be considered rowdies) manhandled the burly lawyers. Roy, in her reply to the court notice said: “For the Court to have issued notice on such a ridiculous petition to three persons who have been vocal in their criticism of the Court shows a disquieting inclination on the part of the Court to muzzle dissent and stifle criticism”. Though he discharged the first notice, the same judge (Justice G.B. Patnaik) who had issued the first notice, issued a second contempt notice, this time to Roy alone for daring to berate the court in this manner. They eventually held her guilty of contempt and sent her to jail with Justice Patnaik sitting as a Judge in his own cause

The Case Of Justice Soumitra Sen
Justice Sen has been recommended to be removed by impeachment by the Chief Justice of India, for the offence of misappropriating funds received by him as a court receiver and thereafter for giving false explanations to the 
High Court. The Chief Justice made this recommendation after a report of a committee of three Judges, who after carefully examining the facts came to the conclusion that he had committed several acts of serious misconduct. Though these acts of misconduct were the subject matter of proceedings pending against him in the Calcutta High Court, yet he came to be appointed during that time, due to the lack of transparency in the matter of appointments. Though the report of the judges committee was submitted a year ago, and the Chief Justice’s recommendation for the removal by impeachment of Justice Sen was made five months ago, the government has not made any attempt to proceed with his impeachment. This is despite the fact that the government has proposed a bill to amend the Judges Enquiry Act by which this very procedure for initiating impeachment proceedings is being sought to be given statutory status. The inaction of the government in Justice Sen’s matter displays the complete lack of seriousness on the part of the government in enforcing judicial accountability. In these circumstances, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms has prepared an impeachment motion against Justice Sen and is sending it to all the political parties with the request that they should have it signed by their MPs so that it could be presented to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha for proceeding with his impeachment.

Case Of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mata
The problems created by the lack of transparency in the appointment of judges is exemplified by the presently proposed appointment of Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mata who has recently been recommended for appointment as Judge to the Delhi High Court. Mr. Mata has recently purchased one floor of a house in Safdarjang Enclave from a builder who had an agreement with the owner of the plot that he would construct the building and hand over three floors to the owner. The remaining two floors would remain with him which he could sell only after handing over possession of the three floors to the owner. Despite the fact, that the builder had not completed the construction of the building and not handed over the possession of the floors belonging to the owner to him, Shri Mata entered into an agreement for purchasing one of the floors which was to go to the builder from him. Shri Mata thereafter used his agreement with the builder to seek mutation (getting his name recorded as owner) of that floor in his name. In his application, he attached a copy of his agreement with the builder, containing the forged signatures of the owner, Mr Joshi. When this was discovered by Mr. Joshi, he made a complaint to the police regarding the forgery. Eventually, at the instance of a magistrate, an FIR came to be registered and an investigation began into this forgery. The act of forgery became clearer when Mr. Mata filed a different version of the same agreement in arbitration proceedings which he had initiated. In this version of the agreement, the signatures of the owner were not there. These facts were learnt only after the recommendation for the appointment of Shri Mata had already been sent to the Law Ministry by the Collegium of the High Court. Thereafter a representation was sent to the collegiums in the High Court and the Supreme Court. Mr. Mata responded to the representation and said that the criminal investigation by the police had exonerated him. The police report had been given hurriedly after the representation, without even waiting for the forensic examination of the forged signatures, and is dishonest. Thereafter another representation was sent to the Supreme Court and the High Court collegiums detailing the misconduct of Mr.Mata and pointing out why it is not possible for the signatures of the owner to have been forged without Mr. Mata’s knowledge and consent. We have pointed out in our representation that even if it is not certain that Mr. Mata participated in the forgery of his agreement with the builder, it is better to err on the side of caution by not appointing him, instead of being faced with a situation as that with regard to Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court.

Judicial Accountability Bill Approved
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill will set judicial standards and make judges accountable for their lapses. It will also mandate that judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court declare their assets and liabilities, including those of their spouses and dependants. The Union Cabinet has approved the draft Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 that provides for setting up a five-member oversight committee to deal with complaints against members of the higher judiciary. Official sources said judges would also be required to declare their assets and file an annual return of assets and liabilities. All these details will be put up on the websites of the Supreme Court and high courts. It will further require judges not to have close ties with any member of the Bar, especially those who practise in the same court. “The enactment of the Bill will address the growing concerns regarding the need to ensure greater accountability of the higher judiciary by bringing in more transparency, and will further strengthen the credibility and independence of the judiciary,” Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni told reporters after a meeting of the Union Cabinet. The proposed oversight committee will be headed by a former chief justice of India and include the attorney general, a Supreme Court judge, a chief justice of a high court and an eminent person nominated by the President.
Oversight committee
The Bill to replace the Judges Inquiry Act retains its basic features, contemplates setting up of a national oversight committee, to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India, with which the public can lodge complaints against erring judges, including the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts. At present, there is no legal mechanism for dealing with complaints against judges, who are governed by ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,' adopted by the judiciary as a code of conduct without any statutory sanction.

The five-member committee to be appointed by the President will have a serving judge of the Supreme Court and a serving 
High Courtjudge, both nominated by the Chief Justice of India; the Attorney-General; and an eminent person nominated by the President.
Scrutiny panels
On receiving a complaint, the committee will forward it to a system of scrutiny panels. In the case of a complaint against a Supreme Court judge, the scrutiny panel will consist of a former Chief Justice of India and two sitting Supreme Court judges, and in the case of a complaint against a 
High Court judge, the panel will have a former Chief Justice of the High Court and two of its sitting judges. The members of the Supreme Court panel will be nominated by the Chief Justice of India, and that of the High Court panels by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. The scrutiny panels will have the powers of a civil court. For instance, they can call for witnesses and evidence. They will be required to give their report within three months to the oversight committee. In the case of a complaint against a Chief Justice, the oversight committee itself will conduct the scrutiny. On receiving the report from the scrutiny panels, the oversight committee will set up a committee to further investigate the case. Like the scrutiny panels, the investigation committee will have the powers of a civil court; it will have the power to frame definite charges. If the charges are not proved, the investigation committee can dismiss the case. Otherwise, it will give a report to the oversight committee, which can issue an advisory or warning or recommend minor punishment if the charges are not too serious. If the charges are serious, the committee can request the judge concerned to resign. If the judge does not do so, the oversight committee will forward the case to the President with an advisory for his removal. The Bill mandates that judges should not have close association with individual members of the Bar and not allow any member of their immediate family to appear before them in courts. Judges should not contest any election to any office of club, society or other association, except those associated with the law or any court. Further, they should not have any bias in judicial work or judgments on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Corruption in the judiciary is hardly a new phenomenon, though it has certainly increased over the years. It is worthwhile however to examine the reasons for the sudden spate of exposures of judicial corruption. Having enjoyed enormous powers, including the power of contempt, without any accountability, the higher judiciary has over the years, tread on the toes of many persons and institutions, particularly the media. Not wanting to suffer criticism, the judiciary has used its power of contempt to stifle criticism. More than 50 editors, publishers and journalists have been issued contempt notices by the Karnataka 
High Court for having written stories about a judicial sex scandal, reportedly involving three judges of the High Court. Small wonder then, that the media is enjoying every bit of the juicy judicial scandals that have exploded. That there has been corruption in the judiciary for many years One reason why judges have been treated as demigods in this country is because of the power of contempt wielded by them. This is a jurisdiction in which a judge against whom an allegation has been made can himself act as the complainant, prosecutor and judge. The judge can even refuse to allow the maker of the allegation to prove its truth. The very existence of this power has been enough to silence the media and inhibit them from exposing judicial misbehavior or corruption. The amendment recently moved in Parliament to make truth a defense in a contempt action is not an adequate safeguard for the citizens and the press. As the case involving the journalists who wrote about the Karnataka sex scandal shows, though the allegation may be made bona fide and on a reasonable basis, it may not always be possible to prove its truth. This could be because the witnesses are won over or the evidence disappears for some other reason.

Preamble to the 
Constitution says-“ We, the people of India having solemnly resolved……….to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE: social, economical and political

LIBERTY of thought….



“There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It super cedes all other courts. ”
-          Mahatma Gandhi

Judicial Nightmare

The Chief Justice of India has once again highlighted the paucity of judges and the delay in filling the vacancies as over 22 lakh cases pile up taking years to be heard
By Ramesh Menon
Justice delayed is justice denied is an axiom that all of us in India understand as we see thousands of cases hanging on without justice for decades. Every day, the number of pending cases in courts increases. There are presently over 2.18 crore cases pending which, observers say, will take over 300 years if the present rate of disposal carries on. Out of these, more than 22.5 lakh cases are over 10 years old. It is a long time before justice is delivered. The irony is striking when in many cases, the judgment arrives after the petitioner has died.

Over the last four months, the 43rd Chief Justice of India, Tirath Singh Thakur, has raised the question of pending appointment of judges as many times. Clearly, it is something that has troubled him more than anything else. On April 25, he raised it at Vigyan Bhavan in the capital during a meeting of chief justices and chief ministers in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to move on the pending appointments. A Lok Sabha discussion in March indicated that appointments were pending of 44 percent judges in high courts, 25 percent in subordinate courts and 19 percent in the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Thakur did not mince words when he said that it was easy to criticize the judiciary but what was required was to lessen the load of judges by filling up vacancies as it was stuck up at the government level. Modi promised to look into the matter. But as nothing moved, the chief of the apex court again raised it when he was hearing the case of a PIL filed by Lt Col Anil Kabotra that the long delay in disposal of cases was violating the fundamental rights of litigants to speedy justice.
Chief Justice Thakur said that the logjam in appointment of judges to HCs was unacceptable and the judiciary could not be brought to a grinding halt. “People have started feeling the pinch because of delay in dispensation of justice. The government must tell us what the problem is,” he said. Again, when Modi did not refer to the increasing pendency which was denying justice to millions in his Independence Day speech, the Chief Justice said that he was disappointed. “You may make roads, schools, hospitals, but please also say something about people waiting for justice,” he said. Political circles sat up as it is rare for any chief justice to be so outspoken when he is in office. “Now, I speak bluntly both inside and outside the court as I know I have reached the peak of my career. From here I have nowhere else to go. So, I have no hesitation in saying anything,” he said.
The fact that two-thirds of the prisoners languishing in Indian jails are undertrials awaiting a hearing is telling. Many of them have been waiting for years. By the time their case comes up for a final hearing, they have already completed what could have been their sentence if convicted. And if they were found innocent, how can the state compensate them for travesty of justice? Disturbing questions. Equally disturbing answers.
The Allahabad High Court has 88 vacancies, the Madras High Court has 40 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court has 37.  Obviously, there is pressure that could have been eased with appointments being made on time. Eighty percent of the backlog is in nine mainline states with larger populations. Mukul Mudgal, former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, told India Legal: “Most of the tribunals must be abolished as it only adds to the litigation burden. It is only a sinecure for retired bureaucrats creating additional costs. Judgments pronounced by one judge should be enforced by that judge within 30 days. Independent experts who advise the government should not unnecessarily ask the government to litigate. The government is the biggest litigant and most of its cases are routinely dismissed. Those who deliberately delay cases must be penalized and those filing false affidavits should be severely prosecuted. Lastly, the Plea Bargaining Act must be revisited and a more practical one must be framed.”
Shockingly, judges spend an average of about 2.5 minutes to hear a case. In another five minutes they decide on it. That is the kind of pressure they face to dispose of what seems an endless mountain of cases. A survey by research agency Daksh found that in the Patna High Court, a judge got just two minutes to hear a case. No wonder Justice Thakur has described the number of judicial vacancies as a national challenge. He said efforts were being made to persuade the government to expedite it.
While speed in the dispensation of cases is paramount to ensure full access to justice, it must be ensured in a manner that does not compromise on the quality and the fairness with which disputes are resolved.
The Law Commission of India has been underlining the need to address this paucity of judges for almost 30 years now, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Former Union law minister Ram Jethmalani toldIndia Legal that while India was blessed to have the kind of judiciary it does, the government is not investing in improving the infrastructure and appointing the requisite number of judges. Chief Justice Thakur obliquely indicated through his utterances in court that he knows what to do and will go ahead and do it if he is forced to do so.
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, there are more than 2.19 crore cases pending. Out of these, 22.3 lakh cases have been pending for more than 10 years, 37 lakh cases for 5 to 10 years and 64.3 lakh cases for 2 to 5 years. It is an issue that should cause alarm for any government. Both the Prime Minister and the Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, have said that they are working on it.
There are less than 15 judges per million in India. Twenty-nine years ago, the Law Commission had recommended that the strength of the judiciary should be increased as soon as possible to ensure that there were at least 50 judges per million. That has not happened.
A robustly functioning judicial system bestows faith among citizens that their democracy is alive and there is a rule of law. This is the big crisis that the judiciary has to face today. Maybe, that is also what is exercising the chief justice who feels that pendency is now affecting the common man’s search for justice. After all, a well-oiled judicial system that delivers speedy justice is the hallmark of a good democracy that ensures that rights of its citizens are ensured and protected. Delayed justice also affects the social, economic and political fabric of the country. As India is at the crossroads of change that is sweeping the world, it can ill-afford a weakened judiciary.
There has been a palpable wave of tension that is simmering between the government and the judiciary ever since the apex court rejected the NJAC Act and restored the collegium system to appoint judges. It is a stroke that political entities are not likely to forget soon. Clearly, the government wanted to exercise its powers in getting a hand in the appointments.
A comparative analysis of the pendency of cases in India shows Uttar Pradesh leading with 51.3 lakh cases. It is followed by Maharashtra with over 30 lakhs, Gujarat with over 22.4 lakhs, Bihar with over 14 lakhs and Rajasthan with over 13 lakhs.
At the end of 2015, there were 426 vacancies in the high courts in India where the total sanctioned strength is 1,029. The total sanctioned strength of the subordinate courts is 20,358. However, only around 15,360 of these posts were occupied. Just filling up the vacancies would not solve the problem. There are only 16,513 courtrooms in India at the moment and in case these vacancies are filled, 3,989 courtrooms would be needed. 
Daksh conducted an empirical study called “The Access to Justice Survey” by interviewing litigants in several district courts over the period of November 2015 to February 2016. The surveyors physically visited 305 locations in 170 districts of 24 states in India. The reasons that litigants stated for delays in their cases ranged from the judges not passing orders quickly to other parties not appearing in courts.
As many as 49.3 percent respondents felt that there were not enough judges for civil cases, while 50.4 percent respondents felt that there were not enough judges for criminal cases. Over 63 percent felt that there were too many cases in the court. 3.8 percent were waiting for more than 10 years to see that their cases are disposed of.
Daksh also focused on the economic impact of undue delays in court cases. It evaluated the economic burden that is felt by the litigating parties as well as the national economy on the whole. The survey states that the loss of productivity due to attending repetitive court hearings because of wages and business lost comes to 0.48 percent of the Indian GDP. Civil litigants were found to spend Rs 497 per day on average for court hearings. They incur a loss of Rs 844 per day due to loss of pay. Criminal litigants spend Rs 542 per day for court hearings on average and incurred a cost of Rs 902 per day due to loss of pay. The average cost incurred by the litigants per day per case came to about Rs 1,039. This indicates that only those who can afford such a high cost of litigation can afford resolution of their legal disputes. This goes against the constitutional provision that guarantees equal protection of the law to every citizen.
The 245th Report of the Law Commission of India on Arrears and Backlog said that one of the problems was that India does not have general statutory time limits for cases as the US does through its Speedy Trial Act. While the Civil Procedure Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code, has time frames for completing certain stages of the case, these statutes generally do not prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed, or each step in the trial should be concluded. On the judicial side, setting of mandatory time limits was attempted by the Supreme Court in a series of cases. However, in 2002 a seven-judge bench of the Court in P Ramchandra Rao vs State of Karnataka held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the court.
The Malimath Committee, in 2013, recommended the use of a two-year time frame as the norm by which delay and arrears in the system should be measured. Additionally, the Law Commission report mentions that the Supreme Court has also recently advocated the use of case-specific time tables for the timely disposal of cases, in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi vs Nirmala Devi which makes it possible for the courts to remain flexible with the time limits they impose on cases depending on the type of case it is.
However, the 245th Report did not recommend mandatory time frames for the disposal of cases as it feared it would affect the quality of judgments. Instead, the Commission recommended using the Rate of Disposal Method to determine how many additional judges should be appointed to clear backlog for an interim period until when the judiciary’s human and physical infrastructure can be increased.
Pendency of cases is a complex issue that has no easy answers. But some plausible solutions can be put into place:
  • Court infrastructure has to be improved to meet the increasing pressure.
  • Technology that can cut red tape and delays should be exploited.
  • All the vacancies should be filled as soon as possible.
  • Court administration should be tightened.
  • There must be a system to deal with or change cumbersome procedural laws that result in delaying the administration of justice.

As cases pile up every day, the problem becomes larger. This issue demands immediate attention from the government if faith in India’s judicial system has to be kept alive.

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2  No  761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,

Cell : 91 8970318202

Home page :  

Contact  :   ,  ,
A   Member  of  Amnesty  International   

No comments: