Founding fathers of our Constitution have placed the judiciary on a high pedestal with special privileges to judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court that for discharging the responsibility of the divine duty vested in them fairly and fearlessly. The result was that no disciplinary proceedings for action could be taken against the judges of our judiciary and no punishment could be imposed for their misconduct, except by way of impeachment. The procedure for impeachment was very complex and difficult and no judge had so far been subjected to impeachment, ever since the Constitution came into force on 26thJanuary 1950, though misconduct and corruption on the part of at least a couple of judges had come to light. That means, mechanism of impeachment is quite inadequate to address the increasing cases of misconduct and abuse of power on the part of the judiciary.
Lord Atkin has said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Judiciary has been entrusted with unlimited power to adjudicate upon the disputes of individuals and states, individuals and individuals and also to declare whether the laws, rules regulations and orders by the legislatures, government and other authorities are illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights envisioned in the Constitution. Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is the law of the land.
It is a well-known principle that it is not enough that justice is done but it must also appear to have been done. Accountability and transparency is the basis of any democratic system. Allegations levelled against higher judiciary in recent times are by no means negligible or small. It tarnishes the name and reputation of the judiciary and shatters the confidence of ordinary citizens to whom the judiciary is the last and only hope of justice, hitherto to adjust and redress their grievances. Just as the mechanism of impeachment has failed to deal with erring judges, it is necessary to think of a mechanism which can effectively address the misconduct of higher judiciary. It is my feeling that the system of appointment of judges itself requires modification. It is the collegium of three senior judges of the High Court that recommends the name of the person to be appointed as High Court judge. This is really against the Constitutional Provision which requires effective consultation with the Government, which would have placed some restriction in the matter of appointment. I also feel that while selecting a candidate for elevation to the High Court or Supreme Court, foremost consideration must be the integrity of the person.
All is said and done, though there are some aberrations on the part of some judges. It is a matter of satisfaction that generally speaking, vast majority of the judges is in the dignity and reputation of this High Office. Any step taken to keep the temple of justice pure and unpolluted will be highly appreciated by the citizenry.
