KLNMurthy wrote:Too many of the judges seem to be pompous asses and empty vessels. That is a sign of weakness--chances are that they are corrupt and cowardly. This is the same judiciary that produced dara-hua and corrupt judges like Chandrachud Sr and Ahmadi at Supreme Court level.
In the short term, I look for ways of squeezing individual judges in their weak points to bring them into line. In the longer term, look into making the system more transparent and accountable.
Given the effective majority in both houses, the only things lacking are imagination and will.
Agreed. I hope GoI pushes the NJAC Bill once again in modified form. I am no expert on this judgment, but as far as a basic refresher reading of the topic goes, the primary opposition to the NJAC Act is based on the fact that the Committee includes the Union Law Minister. In fact, the judgment specifically describes the Act as unconstitutional on the basis of the interference against 'judicial independence', even though the Law Minister was a part of the committee selecting judges from 1950-1993.
Without a suitable bench, the best course of action therefore is to frame an act that defines specific parameter requirements for the selection
of judges. For example, the Oct 15 2015 judgment describes:
The learned Attorney General made a reference to three instances, which according to him, were universally condemned, by one and all. One of the Judges appointed to this Court, according to him, was a non-performer as he had authored just a few judgments as a Judge of the High Courts of Delhi and Kerala, and far lesser judgments as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand and Karnataka High Courts, and less than ten judgments during his entire tenure as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The second Judge, according to him, was notoriously late in commencing Court proceeding, a habit which had persisted with the said Judge even as a Judge of the Patna and Rajasthan High Courts, and thereafter, as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, and also as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The third Judge, according to the learned Attorney General, was notoriously described as a tweeting Judge, because of his habit of tweeting his views, after he had retired. Learned counsel for the respondents, acknowledged having understood the identity of the Judges from their above description by the learned Attorney General, and also affirmed the factual position asserted in respect of the Judges mentioned. The learned Attorney General also handed over to us a compilation (in a sealed cover) about appointments of Judges made to different High Courts, despite the executive having expressed an adverse opinion. The compilation made reference to elevation of five Judges to High Courts (– two Judges to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, one Judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, one Judge to the Patna High Court, and one Judge to the Calcutta High Court) and three Judges to the Supreme Court. It may be clarified that the objection with reference to the Supreme Court Judges was not related to their suitability, but for the reason that some High Courts were unrepresented in the Supreme Court. We would therefore understand the above position as covering the period from 1993 till date. But it was not his contention, that these elevations had proved to be wrongful. We may only notice, that two of the three Supreme Court Judges referred to, were in due course elevated to the high office of Chief Justice of India.
It's fairly clear from the above that there are many judges with a history of impropriety - whether it is bad work ethic, lack of professionalism, lust for publicity, or outright corruption. An Act would have to be framed such that anyone with such a record would be barred from further elevation, if not outright dismissed from service.
Such an Act would be extremely hard to dismiss as unconstitutional, since defines greater depth into Article 124. If it wants, the government can expand this to apply to all public officers - both the executive / administration and judiciary. It would eliminate the discretionary power of the Collegium that currently exists.