All fall down

Sir — The regularity with which our judges are getting into trouble — first it was Bhagwati Prasad Banerjee and now it is Soumitra Sen, not to speak of the Y.K. Sabharwal fiasco — indicates that a malaise runs deep within the judiciary (“Impeach heat on Calcutta judge”, Sept 9). Had there not been the archaic Contempt Law, which deals with the offence of criticizing the court, more such cases would surely have stumbled out of the judicial cupboard. Any effort to cleanse judicial corruption should start at the ground level.

Once lawyers become judges, they are endowed with several privileges that make them immune to the law. At that stage it becomes tough to take action against them. Hence if the judiciary is to be cleansed of dishonest members, the action has to start from the ground level. Sen committed the act of financial impropriety that he has been charged with as a high court advocate in 1993-94, and still managed to be elevated to the position of a high court judge in 2003. This indicates that his antecedents were carelessly checked at that time. Bureaucrats, in contrast, have to undergo mandatory police verification before joining office.

Lack of transparency inevitably breeds corruption. The process of induction into the judiciary is so arbitrary and opaque that it naturally evokes suspicion. The practice of recruitment from the bar, without the aspirants having to go through a competitive examination, had been discarded for the lower levels of the judiciary a few years back. While the introduction of an entrance examination has tightened matters a bit, the loopholes that still remain must be plugged in time. Or more lawgivers would fall from their pedestals.

Yours faithfully,
Bappaditya Pal, Calcutta

Sir — Soumitra Sen has brought disgrace to the sacred office he holds. However, he is not the lone black sheep in the herd. In 2003, a Delhi High Court judge, Shamit Mukherjee, had been arrested after the Central Bureau of Investigation detected his involvement in a Delhi Development Authority scandal. And then there is the famous case of the Supreme Court judge, V. Ramaswami. Proceedings were initiated against him in 1991 in an illegal furniture purchase case but the case fell through in parliament.

Even after all this, the common man continues to repose his faith in the judicial edifice of our country. And not without reason. For there are still some honest judges and lawyers around. Since a few bad apples can spoil the good ones, men like Sen or Mukherjee deserve to be severely punished before they get the chance to corrupt others. Only exemplary punishment can stem the rot. The Chief Justice of India deserves praise for sending across this message.

Yours faithfully,
A.K. Biswas, New York, US

Sir — How can a person judge others when he himself is not in the right? It is men like Soumitra Sen who destroy our faith in the judiciary. It is not enough to punish Sen for his ‘misconduct’. There must have been many among his colleagues who helped Sen to continue in office even as he was knee-deep in corruption. They are as culpable as Sen is. If the Augean stables are to be cleaned, then the judges will have to be ruthless towards one and all.

Yours faithfully,
Jyoti Shokhanda, Bangalore

Sir — As per our laws, judges cannot be dismissed. They have to go through a process of impeachment in parliament that can be introduced in the House either by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. Then the cases are transferred to the speaker or the chairman, who sets up a three-member inquiry committee to try the judges. Even if the committee recommends their removal, the decision has to be vetted by a double majority in the House in which the motion was introduced, to be followed by a similar process in the other House before the judges can be indicted. Because of this circuitous process, it is very difficult to get judges behind bars. Since most members of parliament are corrupt themselves, they usually try to protect the accused judges.

If all are equal before the law, then why should judges deserve special treatment?

Yours faithfully,
B.S. Ganesh, Bangalore

Sir — To minimize dishonest practices in the judiciary, judges of lower courts should be recruited only on the basis of merit in open and fair competition. Quotas and reservations should not be taken into consideration. There are many retired members of the bar who could volunteer to become judges before they hang up their coats. That way, they could give back the knowledge and experience they have acquired over the years.

In all judicial appointments, a thorough check of the background of the candidate, besides a mandatory declaration of assets, is a must. The government also needs to put an end to its practice of appointing retired judges to head various inquiry commissions. This only allows people to throw temptations in their path and makes their job difficult.

Yours faithfully,
K. Venkataraman, Mumbai