Judges’ Accountability
Judges’ Accountability
The Judges’ (Inquiry) Act, 1968 shall be repealed if the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (New Bill) is passed.
The new Bill provides for disclosure of property. It restricts the Judges from conducting any matter relating to their relatives.
The new Bill is related to the Judges of High Courts, Supreme Court including the Chief Judges.
A common person can make a complaint against the Judge to the National Judicial Oversight Committee (NJOC).
The NJOC shall send the complaint to the Scrutiny Panel (SP) for scrutinising the contents of the complaint.
If there is material in the complaint the complaint shall be again sent back to the NJOC with a report of the SP.
On report of the SP the matter will be sent to the Investigation Committee (IC).
IC shall enquire into the complaint. It shall make its report with findings to the NJOC.
If NJOC found substance in the inquiry and findings made by the IC, the NJOC shall request the Judge to voluntarily resign.
If the judge refuses to resign voluntarily the NJOC shall make its recommendations to the President of India (PoI) for removal of the Judge.
The PoI then refers the matter to the Central Government.
The Central Government will put the matter before any or both Houses of the Parliament.
There may again be further investigation directed by the Speaker or Chairperson, through the same IC.
After such a report of IC if any there shall be a vote of motion kept before each House of the Parliament.
If the motion is adopted in each House the complaint shall be deemed to be proved against the Judge.
Then each House shall address the matter to the PoI with the results of motion.
The PoI will decide the fate of the Judge in its own legal ways.
This is what the short procedure provided in the New Bill. The only time limit provided is for the IC. Within 6 months from the date of the reference of the matter to the IC shall make its report of inquiry to the NJOC. This period of six months can be extended only by written permission of the NJOC. The whole procedure up to reference is made to the Houses of Parliament shall be made IN CAMERA. Names of nobody involved in the complaint i.e. the complainant, the judge, the witnesses, the advocates, etc. shall be disclosed. The only novelty of the said Bill is a complaint by a common person. The whole procedure is not time bound. The frivolous complainants are punishable with RI (Rigorous Imprisonment) of 5 years and fine up to Rs. 5 Lakhs.
It is further provided that during the pendency of inquiry of IA the NJOC can recommend the Judge to stop doing judicial assignments.
The Central Government is empowered to make Rules there under.
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is empowered to make Rules regarding procedure for presentation of address to the POI for removal of judges.
If the charges are not proven the report and order shall be covered under RTI Act. But other proceedings are not covered under RTI without permission of the NJOC. In other words, the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not applicable.
The New Bill shall give a tool in the hands of the common litigants to fight especially against corruption in Higher Judiciary. If a judge, who is requested to resign voluntarily, refuses to do so, the procedure is lengthy for the PoI to reach the order of removal. But in other cases it is enough to prove for the NJOC to request the judge to resign. In normal circumstances it is believed that the judge so requested shall give resignation. It is sure that the increasing use of the New Act, if came into force, of course will give a big setback to the corrupt Judges in the Higher Judiciary.
I always believe that democracy is made for the people who know about democracy. Know your duties and rights. Democracy saves those who save it. Rise yourself to save democracy then democracy will save you.
Ranjitsinh Ghatge, Advocate
(Author is founder of R G Legal Services)
01092011:1154
Jeet
Advocate Ranjitsinh Ghatge 🦅
9823044282 / 8554972433 / 9049862433
Comments
Post a Comment