TEXT OF THE ONLINE
PETITION ADDRESED TO THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND PM TO CONSTITUTE A
NATIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSION TO TRY AND PUNISH GUILTY JUDGES AS PER LAWS
APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY CITIZENS
A judiciary-headed (The Chairman was a former Chief Justice
of India), judiciary-heavy (six of the eleven members, including the Chairman,
were from the legal profession) National Commission to the Review of the
Working of the Constitution has observed the following:
'Judicial system has not been able to meet even the modest
expectations of the society. Its delays
and costs are frustrating, its processes slow and uncertain. People are pushed to seek recourse to
extra-legal methods for relief. Trial
system both on the civil and criminal side has utterly broken down.'
Also, 'Thus we have arrived at a situation in the judicial
administration where courts are deemed to exist for judges and lawyers and not
for the public seeking justice'.
However, no recommendation has been made to effectively
tackle this. The two suggestions that have been made are really disastrous.
This is what Dr Subash Kashyap (one of the five non-judicial members of the
Commission and a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha) has recorded in his
Notes (to the report of the Commission):
Attention is also invited to the decision taken by the
Commission at its 14th Meeting held on 14-18 December, 2001. Para 16 of the minutes records that
"There shall be a National Judicial Commission for making recommendation
as to the appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court (other than the Chief
Justice of India), a Chief Justice of a High Court and a Judge of any High
Court."
"The composition of the National Judicial Commission
would be as under:
a) The Vice-President of India
b) The Chief Justice of India
c) Two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court, next to the
Chief Justice
d) The Union Minister for Law & Justice."
However the composition of the NJC as recommended by the
Commission in its Final Report is:
The National Judicial Commission for appointment of judges
of the Supreme Court shall comprise of:
(1) The Chief Justice of India : Chairman
(2) Two senior most judges of the Supreme Court :
Member
(3) The Union Minister for Law and Justice : Member
(4) One eminent person nominated by the President
after consulting the Chief Justice
of India : Member
Further, this is what the Commission has recommended on
dealing with guilty judges:
In
appropriate cases the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of
India, may withhold judicial work from the judge concerned after the inquiry
committee records a finding against the judge.
In
serious cases, ‘if the
decision of the said committee of (seven) judges recommends the removal of the
Judge, it shall be a convention that the judge promptly demits office
himself. If he fails to do so, the
matter will be processed for being placed before Parliament in accordance with
articles 124(4) and 217(1) Proviso (b).’
This is what Dr Subash Kashyap has finally recorded in his Notes to the
Report:
‘The Chapter 7 of the Report is titled ‘The Judiciary’. This chapter particularly is seriously flawed
and distorted. The much needed Judicial Reform issues have not been even
touched or these got deleted in the final draft. In matters like appointment of judges, the
approach in the final chapter is heavily and unconstitutionally weighed in
favour of the judges themselves selecting their own colleagues thereby striking
at the legitimate powers of the Executive and the Parliament and disturbing the
delicate balance in the polity.’
Under the circumstances, I
appeal to the Hon’ble President of India, the Prime Minister and distinguished
Representatives of the People to kindly constitute a National Judicial
Commission to try and punish guilty judges as under:
The Commission should have
powers to receive complaints against judges from any citizen of this country.
The Commission should have
judicial powers but should have only one member from the legal profession as in
army court-martials.
The Commission should have total
powers and resources to investigate the allegations independently.
The Judge against whom
allegation have been made should be deemed suspended once investigations have
been initiated.
The trial should be concluded
within three months of initiating the investigations.
The punishment should be
deterrent. It should have atleast twice the severity as would be applicable for
a non-legal person convicted for the same offences.
The only appeal permitted should
be to the President of India who will dispose it off on the advice of the
Vice-President, PM, Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Leaders of the Opposition
in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
No comments:
Post a Comment