Judiciary in India can be divided into two, the lower and the higher, the former slow and corrupt, perhaps beyond any early redemption. The higher judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India were different, revered and respected until a few years ago. The picture stands changed, primarily the government wielding significant influence over the judges on their plush post-retirement engagements like Chairmanship of enquiry commission and higher up to governorship of states. We need to have rules to insulate judiciary and the bureaucracy from post-retirement appointments.
There is another critical area, which is affecting the judiciary now: the impartiality and probity in the courts. Instances of sheer madness like that one involving Justice (Retd.) CS Karnan, who ignominiously was jailed for contempt cannot be forgotten easily. The frequent press conferences to air the judges grievances haven’t added to the great image of the judiciary either.
The former Law Minister and a lawyer of repute, Shanti Bhushan stated in an affidavit that eight of the last sixteen Chief Justices were corrupt. Judges getting a preferred allotment of plots from the government is not strange either, and in the case of Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee, his plot and bungalow, such secured by non-standard means were auctioned off under the orders of the court.
Sexual harassment charges by a law intern on Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly (Retd.) forced him to surrender his Chairmanship from the State Human Right’s Commission post. Ganguly claimed, ‘of a concerted move to tarnish his image,’ but the case was given a quiet burial after the usual initial uproar.
The latest shock is an allegation of molestation, filed by an ex-staffer, against the CJI. The CJI constituted a Bench to hear the charges, which included himself. The complainant withdrew from the case, feeling intimidated by the Bench with the CJI against whom she had complained and following an outburst he CJI withdrew from the matter. Another judge too, upon the complainant’s submission of a possible bias withdrew from the hearing and a new bench was constituted, which went through the complaint. Two of the SC judges cautioned against dealing with the matter ex-parte. The CJI was exonerated of all charges levelled against him.
Many judges, it is believed, are declined to deal with female staffers, following the incidence. The vulnerability of the judges is understandable, as their long years of reputation could get pulverised in a moment, against the words of a staffer, even if the allegations are found to be untrue in later stages of hearing. On the other hand, avoiding female assistants sounds chauvinistic as well. There may not be any sound system to protect all right now.
Comes now is the matter of morality, that the legality has absolved the CJI. Was it appropriate to nominate himself to the Bench, hearing a complaint against himself? I guess that was wholly inappropriate and the subsequent changes were warranted only with loud protests from activists and the media. The Lordship could’ve well avoided the same and gracefully let his number two to constitute a Bench of his choice to hear out the matter. Hell broke loose over the media, on the social-media, relegating the already battered image of the judiciary yet again, attributing political and other reasons for and against the Bench.
I would refer to RV Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) where the Bench famously held that “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
Sampath Kumar
Intrépide Voix