Disciplinary procedure is needed for judiciary

This refers to the article, “A judicial conundrum” (April 24) by VK Bahuguna. On July 29, 1947, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, in response to a report of the ad-hoc committee on the Supreme Court, proposed a procedure for the removal of judges through impeachment. Further details of this letter, however, were left to the Parliament for a contingency that was expected to arise rarely. It was only in 1964 that the judges demanded a law on impeachment — leading to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which solely dealt with the impeachment procedure. For years, the judiciary continued to evade the question of accountability, both in appointments and jurisprudence, and its aversion to judicial reforms created an unfortunate impression that “judges of the Supreme Court sit on ivory towers far removed from ordinary men and know nothing about them”.

Even today, an absence of a water-tight disciplinary procedure can be felt and the judges continue to wield imperious powers. The alleged misuse of administrative powers by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra to assign cases with far-reaching consequences ‘selectively’ to junior judges, points to outright disregard of the conventions on the allocation of judicial work and questions the integrity of the institution. However, instead of initiating impeachment proceedings against the CJI, the Opposition should have demanded the strengthening of procedure for performance evaluation of the senior judiciary. By rejecting the impeachment notice, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has set a safe precedent. It is time the executive came up with a public consultation to explore the possibility of establishing an independent commission that can insulate the judicial system from inappropriate politicisation and reinforce public confidence.