Judges are humans too...

Three years ago the Law Minister said, 'have a heart', to a lady reporter about why Judges needed to take their spouses on official foreign visits and went on to say, 'you are a women, you should understand!' (my blog entry on that here).Few months ago the entire nation heard Niraa Radia that a SC judge has been 'taken care of'. Two days back a Judge of the Kerala High Court said, that the former CJI was 'approachable', whatever that meant. 

Now, it transpires that the Government was planning to gag the Honourables in its own quirky way. The news item (link) on the foreign visit by the Judges has been ridiculed by the Delhi HC. I haven't read the guideline itself and am unable to comment. The two questions that I have in relation to this news are:

1. What if the Government sends the Judges on 'sponsored trips' that are hosted in other countries by 'private individuals/interests' (that is such a round about way to avoid the word, 'corporate'!), can the Judge say 'no' to the government?  - such a programme was organized for the Judges about 8 years ago to USA, to understand the complexities of the new bio-tech related cases that may come up in India. We all know who 'teaches' bio-tech in USA with its revolving door policy.

2. What will prevent the Judge from receiving such a largesse in India itself? - after all it is a free country. So, what measure is being proposed by the government to ensure that the Judge is not invaded by foreign nationals or for that matter, Indians, with their 'hospitality'! We had amongst other things, the Tihar Raja calling a sitting Judge of Chennai HC on his phone for a favour. The Judge was bold enough to state it in the open court the next day, but, what is the protection the 'competent authority' in the government gives the Honourable Judges against such invasion?

I do think that the Judges should voluntarily accept these regulations and indeed turn it back on the bureaucracy and politicians. As equally powerful pillars of Democracy, they stand to be influenced by the global corporate establishment as much as the Judiciary, if not more.  

Judicial Casteism?

The Madras High Court had come up with couple of rulings on quashing of 'community ( read caste) courts' in the state at different instances in the last few years. But, if their ruling on the clashes within the High Court is any indication the Judges are no better in their clan mindset.

In a one sided judgement they have blamed police officers for the violence within the High Court clashes earlier this year. It is unfortunate that respected Police Officers like ex-Commissioner, Radhakrishnan have been named by the Court in an effort to protect and appease its own lawyers. The Judiciary has taken a partisan view on this issue from the first day onwards (my posts on this issue in February are available at 'Eggs for Swami and No Law for Lawyers' and 'Lawyers, Lawless Courts and Understanding the Growing Anger') was evident. But, it would have been wiser had the Judges (thank god, for a few sensible ones, otherwise I need to prefix 'honourable' to refer to them each time) realized the pressures with which both the Lawyers and Police Officers were functioning at that time. It is bad professional upbringing of the Lawyers that makes them behave with so much violence, for the Police, the response is what they are trained for. It should have also been recognized that the whole thing took place in the background of state-wide anger on the Srilankan Tamil issue and the lawyers forum had been frustrated with a series of unsuccessful efforts before this transpired.

I wonder what would have been the ruling if some Caste Court had decided to take on the Police and torched a police station in the process, would the court say that the caste group should 'rise up to the glory of their public image' (utter delusion in the case of lawyers if any) and leave them free? The loyalty to their own clan is very evident in the judgement. I find this leading to a new form of casteism, the caste of judiciary bonded by the common knowledge and authority of Law.

More on Judiciary Accountability: A High Court Judge says the CJI's views are not shared by all

We have seen repeated attempts to bring the Judiciary under the RTI being resisted at the highest level of the Judiciary, namely the CJI. The CJI has not only maintained repeatedly that the RTI doesn't apply to the office of the Judges, but, has also maintained that the it will harass the judges unnecessarily. 

Now it transpires that every judge doesn't agree with the CJIs contention after all and there is one at least willing to speak his mind and willing to share his asset status with the public. 

A Karnataka High Court judge has taken on the Chief Justice of India in a newspaper article writing that the CJI can't speak on behalf of the judiciary regarding declaration of assets by the judges.

"It's a misnomer to think that the judges of the superior courts, who enjoy constitutional protection and immunity are not ready to disclose their assets," Justice DV Shylendra Kumar wrote in the New Indian Express.

Justice DV Shylendra Kumar article in the newspaper shows that the judiciary is split over the declaration of assets.

Referring to CJI KG Balakrishnan's remarks that judges could be harassed if their assets were made public, Kumar wrote, "On a legal place the CJI does not have the authority to speak for all judges of the Supreme Court, or High Courts, unless any of them have either confided in the Chief Justice or have authorised him to speak on behalf of others."

Supreme Court Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan had remarked that judges could be harassed if their assets were made public.

The Government had to withdraw the Bill on Judges' Assets in the last session of Parliament after a chorus of protest from the Opposition against the provision that a judge's assets would be beyond the purview of the Right to Information Act.

Justice Kumar argued that it was the Supreme Court itself that pushed RTI and said that he was than willing to declare his assets in public.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan supported Justice Kumar's stand to reveal judge's assets.

"The leadership of the Court i.e, the CJI and some other senior judges do not want to reveal their assets. As rightly said by the Karnataka judge that if the CJI doesn't have any authority to stop any judge of the Supreme court or judges of the High Court from declaring his/her asset if he is willing to do so. Any judge, who is willing to reveal his/her assets and wants to put it up on the website has every right to do so. If he is being prevented to do so by other judges of the Supreme court or judges of the High Court then it is very unfortunate," said Prashant Bhushan.

source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cji-cant-speak-for-all-on-assets-issue-karnataka-hc-judge/99640-3.html?from=rssfeed

RTI for neta, babu and his honour too!

When it comes to shying away from RTI, each self-proclaimed arm of Democracy seems to prove coy than the other. The PMO, the CJI,...now the Central Information Commissioner declared that Judges need to make their assets just like the MPs and MLA, so what does the Supreme Court do? Get a stay ordered by a High Court (!!) against the order. Even worse the High Court Judge gives a value lesson, 'don't treat us like you treat politicians', whatever does that mean!? Is he saying that he is a superior species? Judges have been rather high on the value pronouncements in recent years, but, this takes the cake. The Judge says, declaration of assets could put the Judge under pressure! How so? Beats me. These gentlemen have government paid security to guard them, red top cars to carry them around, half a working day to ensure they don't doze off and an annual holiday that would make a primary school kid blush. 

With so many privileges being granted to them from the tax-payer money, there is no accountability as to what are they delivering to the nation. We read year after year about the piling up of cases and under-trials spending long months and years in custody. We have no performance indicators, monitoring mechanism or annual balance sheet as to what these revenue drains deliver to the nation. Now, here is a regulatory mechanism through which at least the public can get to know how much these gentlemen possess (not that it would matter if they did their job well and the public is satisfied with them) to keep themselves entertained while waiting for justice in the courts of these gentlemen, and, they feel offended!!

'Don't treat judges like politicians on assets issue'

"Public interest standards for the judiciary have to be different from other institutions. So judges have to be treated differently from people's representative on the issue (declaration of assets)," justice S Ravindra Bhat said. He was responding to a Right to Information (RTI) applicant who contended that judges should declare their assets like MPs and MLAs. It may be noted that the Supreme Court itself held in the Justice Veeraswamy corruption case that apex courtjudges are public servants.