Courting scepticism

Courting scepticism

Respect is to be earned, not decreed

A THREE-judge Bench of the Supreme Court may have put the lid firmly on the so-called “judicial bribery” scandal but it is difficult to have the assurance that the judiciary has completely redeemed its own institutional reputation. Not only did the three-judge Bench take a narrow, administrative view as to who gets to constitute a Bench, but also suggested that the petitioners were guilty of unethical and unwarranted “forum hunting”. Indeed, the petitioners’ acts were deemed contemptuous, yet the court stopped short of holding them in contempt. Furthermore, taking a technical view, the court insisted that no judge could be held responsible only on the basis of rumours and insinuations.

On the face of it, this is a sound proposition. Yet, there is a Catch-22 situation. The three-judge Bench pointedly notes that no FIR can be registered against any judicial functionary, not even a Munsif without the permission of the Chief Justice of India; thus no formal complaint can be made against a High Court or a Supreme Court judge; then, how can instances, real or imaginary, of impropriety on the part of, say, a High Court judge be addressed, except through an in-house mechanism. The existing arrangement, by definition, is non-transparent and therefore subject to an incestuous process of protection and patronage. Factionalism among the judges that was so evident last week further dilutes the court’s collective capacity and willingness to curb malfeasance and misconduct.

It would be unrealistic for anyone to suggest, leave alone insist, that our judiciary is beyond reproach. The anger, animus, hostility, and suspicion witnessed last week in the apex court have left all stakeholders shaken up. While it is certainly true that no honest and upright judge should ever be subjected to needless suspicion, it is equally desirable that judicial impunity and reputation be not available as a shield to bad eggs. Otherwise the executive and the legislature would like to poke their nose in the judiciary’s affairs. Successive chief justices of India have been very vigilant in guarding the judiciary’s institutional autonomy; in this effort, the judiciary has had the civil society’s unstinted support and respect. The onus is on the Chief Justice and his brother judges to remain worthy of that respect.