Just deal

In all justness

Sir — The proposed bill to introduce a new law in India to hold “corrupt” judges accountable is undoubtedly a major step towards rebuilding people’s trust in judicial fairness (“Bill to judge judges”, Nov. 11). The travesty of justice in the Priyadarshini Mattoo and Jessica Lal cases proves that widespread corruption exists at various levels of the judiciary. In a country like India, where trial by jury has been abolished, judges play an all-important role in upholding justice for citizens. But judges, like all human beings, are fallible. Why, then, should charges of corruption against them not be probed? While the Supreme Court still commands some respect in the international legal community, the same cannot be said of the high courts and other lowers courts. The introduction of this new law would, hopefully, address the public discontent over the functioning of the courts.

Yours faithfully,
Kunal Saha, Columbus, US


Sir — The Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2006, approved by the Union cabinet, will formalize the existing ‘in-house procedure’ used to prove corruption in the higher judiciary. Given the present workload on judges, the investigation of charges is expected to be a long-drawn affair. If judges have to be made accountable, a national judicial council should be formed with retired Supreme Court judges as member-nominees of the president, prime minister, leader of the opposition and the chief justice of India. The central vigilance commissioner can be its ex-officio member. It is necessary to bring retired judges within its ambit in order to prevent corrupt deeds in the last days of their tenure. The chief justice of India should closely supervise the council because the existing privileges given to seniors can even enable someone corrupt to reach the top ranks. This council should also be utilized to recommend all appointments, transfers and promotions, the status of judges of the high court, including heads of permanent commissions and inquiry commissions set up by the Union and state governments.

Yours faithfully,
Subhash C. Agrawal, Dariba, Delhi

Sir — The bill to judge the judges is welcome news. Judges are paid out of the public coffers and naturally owe the nation an explanation for their arbitrary behaviour at times. For the last two decades, the judiciary has shown much activism in various areas, often at the cost of the job for which judges are primarily paid for — delivering justice and ensuring redress. While cases continue to pile up, the law courts are seen to give primacy to frivolous issues like ruling on the rotating angel atop Victoria Memorial. Although our jails and government-run hospitals remain unbelievably overcrowded, the court will comment on overcrowding in zoos more promptly (“Glare on crowded zoos”, Sept 2006).

Recently the media has opened a can of worms for the judiciary. There is the Jessica Lal and the Nitish Katara cases, besides the worsening conflict with the executive, which sees it transgressing its authority. But the judges are practically unaccountable. In the Indian polity, the judiciary always took the high ground to present itself as the premier estate of Indian democracy. Right from fixing their own pay package to maintaining an opaque induction procedure to higher judiciary, judges have reigned supreme. Safeguarded by the contempt law, judges have a free hand to do what they think fit. With so much liberty, authority and perquisites (a Supreme Court judge is eligible for employment after retirement, whereas the comptroller and auditor general of India, having the same status, is not) the judiciary is the most respected institution in India and must, therefore, take the responsibility to cleanse itself.

Yours faithfully,
Bappaditya Pal, Calcutta


Sir — It is commendable that finally something is being done to prevent corruption in the judiciary. One hopes that this bill will not only ensure fair judgment for all, but also enable judges to deliver justice efficiently without giving in to the unscrupulous demands of influential people.

Yours faithfully,
S. Chatterjee, Calcutta

Parting shot

Sir — I am a Muslim woman who voluntarily started wearing the abaya/burqa sometime back. I wear a gown and a scarf. I wonder why there is so much hue and cry over a harmless garment. If a woman wants to cover her body as well as her face, what is the problem? But yes, of course, the choice of wearing or not wearing a burqa should be hers.

People in general should be more concerned about the depiction of women as mere sex objects in advertisements, serials and movies. Incidentally, I also watched Barkha Dutt’s We the People on the veil. Contrary to what Khushwant Singh argues (“Relic of the past”, Nov 11), the invited audience did not consist largely of pro- hijab ladies. An atheist like Singh should not comment on religion and hurt the sentiments of his readers.

Yours faithfully
Hina Murtaza, Calcutta