New Delhi:There are two haunting aspects of the Indian judiciary – the impression it gives of an institution insulated from almost all laws of the land that concern the ordinary mortal, and its inaccessibility to the poor. The statement by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that no self-respecting judge would accept the idea of compulsory declaration of wealth and assets or have any committee of lay persons to probe the conduct of the judiciary was severely criticized by several retired Chief Justices and Judges of the apex court.

Such questions were then asked: Are not Judges Citizens of the land? Are they above the law? If they have laid down that candidates contesting an election ought to declare their assets, should not they themselves follow the dictum? When the head of the Supreme Court is quoted as saying, "I personally believe if anyone else inquires into allegations against the judge and imposes punishment, I don't think any self-respecting judge would like it," did he not give the impression that judges can do no wrong and in any case none outside the cloistered chamber had any business to peek into the doings of those within?

Whispers of corruption in the judiciary are getting louder. A survey sometime back by the Centre for Media Studies in collaboration with Transparency International India estimated that corruption involving citizens at various levels of the judiciary to be about Rs. 2,650 crores. The survey which covered corruption in basic services that a citizen experienced went a step further to get some derails. Why do seekers of justice have to pay bribes? Of those interviewed, 23% said it was for getting a favourable judgment; another 23% said it was for speeing up judgment; 16% gave getting bail as the reason; 18% took this route to file affidavits and for registration; 11% for getting their cases registered and 5% to get witnesses to give evidence in their favour.

More than 60% of these surveyed believed that the quality of judicial service was poor. More than half of the disenchanted opted for other means to get justice rather than getting their grievances addressed by the conventional judicial system, an ominous sign. The alternative route meant paying bribe for some judicial service. One confessed to using influence to get their work done.

There has been growing criticism, almost in sync with he pile-up of allegations of corruption against the judiciary, of the in-present procedure for dealing with complaints against judges. The mechanism, as it exists, makes it both the prosecutor and the judge. So protective is the judiciary that even a police complaint against a judge cannot be registered without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. On the other hand, they are quick to take umbrage against any criticism against them.

(Incidentally, this is what Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court had to say about the Contempt of court: "I would often tell lawyers in an open court that they could criticize me as much they liked, inside the court or outside it, to their heart's content but I would not initiate proceedings…….the only situation where I would have to take some action was if my functioning as a judge was made impossible e.g. if someone jumps on the dais of the Court and runs away with court file or keeps shutting and screaming on; court or threatens a party or witness. After all, I have to function if I wish to justify my salary").

At a recent meeting on judicial accountability, eminent lawyers of the Supreme Court said the increasing assertiveness of the judiciary coupled with a almost tal lack of accountability has led to a situation where large sections of the judiciary have effectively sought to declare themselves above the Right to Information Act and claimed immunity from it. The actions of the judiciary on the premise of independence of judiciary while understable cannot be at the expense of accountability, they said; Accountability and a independence are not mutually exclusive.

The other important aspect relates to accessibility of the poor to the judicial system. Arundhati Roy believes that the courts are the most powerful instruments in the country. They micro-manage our lives like what should we spit on the street, what fuel we should consume, whether the slums should be removed, whether the dams should be built etc. former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Sawant says that the court has begun to accumulate power.

Complaining of the elitist bias of the judges, Roy pointed out that Justice Kirpal had termed slum-dwellers were "pick-picketers" of urban land, closure of small scale industries in Delhi and ordered the interlinking of rivers. She also referred to a decision by Justice Ruma Pal to removed a slum called Nagla: Macki. When the petitioner requested the court for sometime as the site of relocation was not ready to shift the population, Justice Pal was quoted as saying there would never be any time for relocation and they need not come to the city if they could not afford a living. Roy's question was: on the one hand the courts are displacing people from the villages and, on the other, also from the slums, so where will the people go in this country?

A convention of judicial accountability and reforms, attended by eminent jurists, in a statement said, among other things that the judiciary had become elitist and anti-poor. The convention further said in a statement: "it has essentially become an instrument for protecting and furthering the interests of the rich and powerful, both Indian and foreign. The judges who have taken the oath to defend the constitutional principles of justice – social, economic and political – have ordered the bull-dozing of the homes of lakhs of jhuggi dwellers, leaving them homeless on the streets. They have ordered the removal of lakhs of street vendors and rickshaw pullers from the streets of Delhi and Mumbai, effectively depriving them of their livelihood."

The call for reclaiming and reinventing the judicial system so that procedural complexities are removed to enable access of the system to the common man without professional lawyers, "who have become part of the exploitative judicial system." Also, judges need to be appointed in a transparent manner so that it is possible to scrutinize them and also an independent Judicial Commission to examine complaints against judges.

The more the judges try to shroud themselves in secrecy, more the cry for transparency. In the prevailing environment of increasing public awareness and suspicion of any secrecy, it will not be long before the judiciary also falls in line. To begin with, the Right to Information Act will soon enter the portals of the judiciary.

EMAIL THIS NEWS COMMENTS No comments yet