Jamshedpur, Aug. 1: Court circles at Sakchi claimed that this is the first time, a judicial magistrate has been sacked for alleged corruption. The one line order dismissing D.C. Shukla, “Your services are no longer required by the state government,” arrived on Friday.

There was very little surprise though. “Money, they say, talks and here it is the only language understood by most,” said one of the lawyers. The use of the “silver tonic” or just plain greasing the palms, said another, has become so much a part of the system that newcomers often grow in the court thinking it to be natural. There are of course different “rates” and the lawyers know them all. Even bailors are arranged for a fee with clients having the option of choosing between “genuine” bailors and “fake” bailors, claimed a section of the lawyers. They naturally pay much more for the “fakes”—which, if the lawyers are to be believed, form one thriving industry in the court.

“Often an old soul thrown out of his house by his or her children, a drug addict or simply the sole bread-earner for the family, work in this profession,” they confided. Old documents of some plot of land, gate pass of corporate bodies or even a duplicate owner book of some unsuspecting vehicle-owner are produced as proof of identity and ownership of property. “Almost everyone in the court is aware of these bailors and yet no action is ever taken against them, the lawyers or the clients who engage them,” a lawyer pointed out.

Others, however, vehemently denied the existence of corruption in the courts. “It’s because there is no corruption in the judiciary that the odd corrupt elements are being weeded out. Had the system been corrupt, surely no action would have been taken against them,” argued advocate Umesh Dubey.

Media hype over the dismissals, he felt, would unnecessary bring the lower judiciary under a great deal of pressure. The courts, too, will be far more circumspect in granting bails, even in cases where legitimate doubts are there, he said, adding that the ordinary litigant will suffer. There were others who felt that there should be greater transparency involved in the dismissal of judges. Justice, they felt, must be transparent and therefore the complicity or culpability of the judicial officers should have been made public, they felt. There was a consensus over the formation of a statutory national body to act as a watchdog.

and for recruitment or removal of judges at various levels. A national judicial service on the lines of the IAS and with UPSC entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the test—is another idea that was thrown up.

eom