Judicial Impropriety and Corruption | UPSC

Spread the love

IASbhai Daily Editorial Hunt | 19th Oct 2020

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over.– Richard Branson

Dear Aspirants
IASbhai Editorial Hunt is an initiative to dilute major Editorials of leading Newspapers in India which are most relevant to UPSC preparation –‘THE HINDU, LIVEMINT , INDIAN EXPRESS’ and help millions of readers who find difficulty in answer writing and making notes everyday. Here we choose two editorials on daily basis and analyse them with respect to UPSC MAINS 2020-21.

EDITORIAL HUNT #196 :“Judicial Impropriety and Corruption | UPSC

Judicial Impropriety and Corruption | UPSC

Prashant Bhushan
Judicial Impropriety and Corruption | UPSC

Prashant Bhushan is a public interest advocate practising at the Supreme Court

      HEADLINES:

Probing judicial impropriety and corruption

      CENTRAL THEME:

Only retired judges of high credibility would be able to conduct a robust inquiry into Jagan Reddy’s complaint

SYLLABUS COVERED: GS 2 : Judiciary

      MAINS QUESTION:

Charges of corruption can also be a ground for initiating impeachment. Such charges therefore cannot remain secret. But they surely dent the image of Judiciary if proven right . Comment -(GS 2)

      LEARNING: 

  • CM Letter to CJI
  • Charges
  • Investigation
  • CJI Options
  • Way Forward

      INTRODUCTION: 

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister wrote to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) accusing a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of judicial impropriety .

ALLEGATIONS
He also alleged corruption and State High Court judges of bias.

      BODY: 

CONTENTS OF THE LETTER

CHARGES

  • THE LETTER : It refers to the purchase of agricultural land, in the area to be declared as the capital city of Andhra Pradesh.

It is between the time when Chandrababu Naidu became Chief Minister in 2014 and the time when he announced the demarcation of the new capital at Amaravati.

  • THE CHARGES : The land was purchased by persons, including the Supreme Court judge’s daughters and in-laws , after declaration of the capital area limits, at the same low price for the lands which existed before the demarcation.

In fact the market prices had skyrocketed, thereby causing huge pecuniary gain to them.

  • INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION : In March, the Principal Secretary (Home), Andhra Pradesh Government, wrote to the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions seeking a CBI inquiry into the findings of a Cabinet sub-committee.
  • SCRUTINY : They set up to investigate charges of corrupt dealings in land purchases.
  • SUB-COMMITTE REMARKS : It opined that public servants at the helm of affairs in the erstwhile government misused and abused their official position to pre-determine the location of the new capital .
  • BENEFICIARIES : Subsequently purchased lands was unjustly and illegally benefiting their associates and their companies and businesses, family members and political party members.
  • REGULATING THE BENCHES : Mr. Reddy accused the Supreme Court judge of influencing the allocation of benches at the State High Court to hear politically sensitive cases.

INVESTIGATION PROCESS

The CM wrote – Passing of a string of orders staying a number of investigations of corruption against the Naidu government.

  • HALTING INVESTIGATIONS : Staying all investigations into the FIR involving this land scam, which mentions the relatives of the Supreme Court judge as well as a former Advocate General as beneficiaries.
  • GAGGED MEDIA : The Chief Justice also issued an unprecedented gag order on the media from reporting the contents of the FIR.

The letter also mentions the High Court’s recent order of an inquiry into a private conversation between a retired judge of the High Court and a district judge .

  • EVIDENCES : In the conversation, the retired judge is heard mentioning his knowledge about the corruption of this Supreme Court judge and asking the district judge if he has more information in this regard.

CJI’s RESPONSE

Two, what the CJI’s response should be .

  • In 1997, judges adopted an in-house procedure for inquiring into such charges.
  • In case of a complaint against a Supreme Court judge, the CJI is expected to order an inquiry by three sitting judges of the Supreme Court.

C. RAVICHANDRAN IYER V. JUSTICE A.M. BHATTACHARJEE (1995)

  • CLASSIFIED INFORMATION : The court held that such complaints should be kept confidential, the unfortunate reality is that the judiciary tends to try and brush complaints of corruption against judges under the carpet.
  • ATTEMPT TO INQUIRY : Sometimes, if the public becomes aware of such complaints, the CJI is compelled to order an inquiry.

WHY IMPEACHMENT IS DIFFICULT ?

  • SHUT DOWNING EYES : We have often seen that even credible complaints against judges, made confidentially to the CJI, are ignored.

The same is seen in attempts to impeach a judge.

  • APPROVAL OF MOTION : At least two conditions must be satisfied before a sufficient number of MPs are willing to sign an impeachment motion against a judge:
  • SOLID DOCUMENTED EVIDENCES : There should be solid documentary evidence of corruption and it should have become a public scandal.
  • SCANDALISING THE COURT : The view that this would scandalise the court is archaic and has been discarded in most progressive democracies.
  • COUNTER ACTIONS : Contempt proceedings against him would be counterproductive, since he is unlikely to be cowed down.

The issue will probably escalate, further denting the image of the judiciary.

      IASbhai Windup: 

WHAT SHOULD THE CJI DO?

  • IN HOUSE PROCEDURE : The purpose of the in-house procedure is that all credible complaints of misconduct against judges of the High Court and Supreme Court should be looked into by a committee of judges.

The charges made in Mr. Reddy’s complaint are serious and appear to warrant an in-house inquiry.

  • CODE OF CONDUCT : The complaint requires an inquiry by three sitting judges of the Supreme Court.
  • ROBUST INQUIRY : In a complaint involving the senior-most puisne judge, it is unlikely that junior judges will conduct a robust and credible inquiry.
  • SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT : In the case of the sexual harassment complaint against the previous CJI, the in-house committee did not allow the complainant to be accompanied by her lawyer, nor did it allow recording of the proceedings.
  • MISSING REPORT : The final report, which purportedly exonerated Mr. Gogoi, has not yet seen the light of day.
  • RECONDITIONING : Strangely, the woman whose allegations were found to be unsubstantiated by this committee was later reinstated by the Court.
  • CREDIBILITY : This casts serious doubts on the credibility of the report.Only retired judges of high credibility will be able to conduct a robust inquiry into Mr. Reddy’s complaint.
  • COMMITTEE : The Chief Justice should set up a credible inquiry committee.
  • REPUTATION AND MISTRUTHS : This will enhance the reputation of the judiciary, dispel mistruths, and redeem the image of the judge concerned.
       SOURCES:   THE HINDU EDITORIAL HUNT | Judicial Impropriety and Corruption | UPSC

 

TRENDING NOW : Important The Hindu Editorials 

If you liked this article, then please subscribe to our YouTube Channel for Daily Current Affairs , Editorial Analysis & Answer writing video tutorials. You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook.


Spread the love

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

IASbhai will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.