<p>The media went into a frenzy following the discovery of a “large stash” of money in the outhouse of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Predictably, all hell broke loose, with questions being raised about the process by which judges are appointed. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill was struck down by a 4:1 majority of Supreme Court judges in 2015. The government is sparing no efforts to reintroduce the provisions of NJAC, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar taking the lead in the matter.</p>.<p>In 2003, the Delhi High Court encountered a similar situation when Justice Shamit Mukherjee, a sitting judge of the court, was taken into custody for a week by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency raided his residence in Delhi and found “incriminating documents” and two locker keys while investigating the multi-crore scam involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It transpired that during the CBI’s extensive probe, about 20 Delhi High Court files were recovered from the house of Dharamveer Khattar, a middleman and a key suspect. Transcripts of Khattar’s telephonic conversations revealed details of “illegal gratification” demanded by Shamit Mukherjee in return for judicial favours, the CBI alleged. The issue blew over when Justice Mukherjee resigned. He had not been confirmed as a Permanent Judge when these events occurred. The CBI took him into custody immediately thereafter.</p>.<p>But Justice Varma is a senior judge and was perhaps in line to become the Chief Justice of India. Once confirmed, a judge can only be removed from office by impeachment initiated under Article 124 read with 218 of the Constitution. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, regulates the procedure for investigating and proving the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.</p>.<p>Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has been criticised in some quarters for appointing a three-judge committee to conduct a “fact-finding inquiry” into the allegations. This follows the established procedure, with the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling stating that such an inquiry will be a fact-finding process where the judge involved is given the opportunity to present his side of the story.</p>.<p>The Chief Justice of India and the remaining four members of the collegium have a gruelling schedule. They decide cases while sitting on the judicial side, read related papers and books, handle administrative issues and perform their collegium-related duties. How much time does this leave for addressing infractions of judges like Justice Shekar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, the peccadilloes of Justice Gangopadhyaya of the Calcutta High Court and the present embarrassment caused by the cash seizure at Justice Varma’s residence? It is high time that the Chief Justice of India considers evolving a permanent mechanism to thoroughly look into contraventions by members of the higher judiciary and ensure that offenders are brought to book. It must be borne in mind that the disclosure of assets by judges of the Supreme Court is being seen as too little, too late.</p>.<p>While senior journalists have suggested that the fact-finding inquiry ought to have comprised members of civil society with an impeccable public record, the truth is that involving laymen in the process could put too much pressure on both the judiciary and the person concerned, potentially compromising the integrity of the institution.</p>.PIL filed in Allahabad HC to stop Justice Yashwant Varma from taking oath.<p>The question is: Why is the judiciary not involving retired judges? Some retired judges have more than proven themselves by their outstanding record and rectitude. Why doesn’t the CJI think it fit to press some of them into action? Retired judges are not bound by judicial protocol, some of them command enormous public confidence <br>and fully understand the implications of their actions. What’s more, they have time on their hands!</p>.<p>Sure, some naysayers might call them the judicial equivalent of the Margadarshak Mandal, but it is also more than true that Indian judges retire far too early. While Supreme Court judges in the USA and Aruba serve for a lifetime, those in Brazil and Chile superannuate at the age of 75. Indian judges, on the other hand, retire at 62 in the high courts and 65 in the Supreme Court. </p>.<p>CJI Khanna finds himself caught between the devil and the deep sea. This incident has shaken public confidence in the judiciary and he would be damned if he adopted full disclosure and equally damned if he didn’t disclose enough since the entire system is at stake in how deftly he handles this crisis. But equally enough, it does present an opportunity for the judiciary to improve into a better version of itself.</p>.<p>(The writer is a Supreme Court advocate and former legal advisor to the <br>Government of Karnataka, with the rank of minister)</p>
<p>The media went into a frenzy following the discovery of a “large stash” of money in the outhouse of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Predictably, all hell broke loose, with questions being raised about the process by which judges are appointed. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill was struck down by a 4:1 majority of Supreme Court judges in 2015. The government is sparing no efforts to reintroduce the provisions of NJAC, with Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar taking the lead in the matter.</p>.<p>In 2003, the Delhi High Court encountered a similar situation when Justice Shamit Mukherjee, a sitting judge of the court, was taken into custody for a week by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The agency raided his residence in Delhi and found “incriminating documents” and two locker keys while investigating the multi-crore scam involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It transpired that during the CBI’s extensive probe, about 20 Delhi High Court files were recovered from the house of Dharamveer Khattar, a middleman and a key suspect. Transcripts of Khattar’s telephonic conversations revealed details of “illegal gratification” demanded by Shamit Mukherjee in return for judicial favours, the CBI alleged. The issue blew over when Justice Mukherjee resigned. He had not been confirmed as a Permanent Judge when these events occurred. The CBI took him into custody immediately thereafter.</p>.<p>But Justice Varma is a senior judge and was perhaps in line to become the Chief Justice of India. Once confirmed, a judge can only be removed from office by impeachment initiated under Article 124 read with 218 of the Constitution. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, regulates the procedure for investigating and proving the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.</p>.<p>Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has been criticised in some quarters for appointing a three-judge committee to conduct a “fact-finding inquiry” into the allegations. This follows the established procedure, with the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling stating that such an inquiry will be a fact-finding process where the judge involved is given the opportunity to present his side of the story.</p>.<p>The Chief Justice of India and the remaining four members of the collegium have a gruelling schedule. They decide cases while sitting on the judicial side, read related papers and books, handle administrative issues and perform their collegium-related duties. How much time does this leave for addressing infractions of judges like Justice Shekar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, the peccadilloes of Justice Gangopadhyaya of the Calcutta High Court and the present embarrassment caused by the cash seizure at Justice Varma’s residence? It is high time that the Chief Justice of India considers evolving a permanent mechanism to thoroughly look into contraventions by members of the higher judiciary and ensure that offenders are brought to book. It must be borne in mind that the disclosure of assets by judges of the Supreme Court is being seen as too little, too late.</p>.<p>While senior journalists have suggested that the fact-finding inquiry ought to have comprised members of civil society with an impeccable public record, the truth is that involving laymen in the process could put too much pressure on both the judiciary and the person concerned, potentially compromising the integrity of the institution.</p>.PIL filed in Allahabad HC to stop Justice Yashwant Varma from taking oath.<p>The question is: Why is the judiciary not involving retired judges? Some retired judges have more than proven themselves by their outstanding record and rectitude. Why doesn’t the CJI think it fit to press some of them into action? Retired judges are not bound by judicial protocol, some of them command enormous public confidence <br>and fully understand the implications of their actions. What’s more, they have time on their hands!</p>.<p>Sure, some naysayers might call them the judicial equivalent of the Margadarshak Mandal, but it is also more than true that Indian judges retire far too early. While Supreme Court judges in the USA and Aruba serve for a lifetime, those in Brazil and Chile superannuate at the age of 75. Indian judges, on the other hand, retire at 62 in the high courts and 65 in the Supreme Court. </p>.<p>CJI Khanna finds himself caught between the devil and the deep sea. This incident has shaken public confidence in the judiciary and he would be damned if he adopted full disclosure and equally damned if he didn’t disclose enough since the entire system is at stake in how deftly he handles this crisis. But equally enough, it does present an opportunity for the judiciary to improve into a better version of itself.</p>.<p>(The writer is a Supreme Court advocate and former legal advisor to the <br>Government of Karnataka, with the rank of minister)</p>
