“Kanche change me the” (is a Telugu proverb that means ‘while the fence eats the crop’). When that occurs, how do we guard the crop against the fence? Among the 3 estates of the Constitution, the judiciary is the handiest savior in which wrongdoings of the executive and the legislatures want to be corrected. If the guardians of the Constitution, the judges themselves, are pulled into the accused’s field, who will judge them.
There becomes an RTI request to know how to document the criticism, if any, in opposition to sitting or former Chief Justice, sitting or former judges of both Supreme Court and High Courts? It appears to be an easy question. However, nobody should answer it. No citizen can file a grievance, grievance, or FIR to make a criminal price towards sitting or former judges. RTI questions referring to judges cross around the President’s office, law minister, Prime Minister, come again to the office of the Chief Justice of India, and hit the wall.
The Constitution of India does not provide any mechanism to inquire into the court cases against the sitting or former judges an awful lot, much less in opposition to the Chief Justice of India. So away in India, no Chief Justice of India has been accused of any misconduct. Only when Parliament initiates complaints about the impeachment of a decide, the inquiry into misconduct is contemplated.
Article 124(4) begins with phrases “a Judge of Supreme Court shall no longer be eliminated from his office…”, observed by way of an exception for impeachment. Only Parliament can clear up to eliminate a decision. These provisions do now not specially say approximately the impeachment of the Chief Justice. But the expression ‘judge’ includes the Chief Justice also, through implication. There has been no occasion for Parliament or Supreme Court to this point to think of probing ‘misconduct’ allegations in opposition to the CJI.
Article 124(five) says Parliament may additionally, via regulation, regulate the method for the presentation of cope with and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a judge, based totally on which he may be impeached. Exercising this power, Parliament passed the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which is a procedural statute that regulates “the method for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or disability of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and for the presentation of an cope with by using Parliament to the President and for depending, connected therewith.” Section 3 lays down that the investigation into the prices might be made utilizing a committee of three individuals who could be decided on by the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha.
One Bill, the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, that seeks to update the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968, and some others, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, have no longer been handed. The 2006 Bill sought to set up a National Judicial Council to inquire into allegations of incapacity or misbehavior of judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court. It has defined ‘misbehavior’ as “willful or continual behavior which brings dishonor or disrepute to the judiciary; or willful or continual failure to carry out the obligations of choice; or willful abuse of judicial workplace, corruption, loss of integrity; or committing an offense regarding ethical turpitude…”
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, counseled a definition of ‘misbehavior’ as “corruption or lack of integrity which incorporates delivering judgments for collateral or extraneous reasons, making demands for attention in cash or type,” or “any other movement… which has the impact of subverting the administration of justice”. Failure to claim property and liabilities or willfully giving false statistics also become covered inside the definition of ‘misbehavior.’ Sexual harassment allegations, if proved, will absolutely be ‘misbehavior.’ As those Bills have no longer grow to be Acts. The 1968 Act did no longer outline them; matters are left to the translation of the courts. Until the movement for impeachment is admitted in Parliament, it’s miles legally impossible to represent an inquiry panel.
