Kanche then messes” (is a Telugu proverb meaning ‘while the fence eats the crop’). When that takes place, how do we shield the crop from the fence? Among the three estates of the Constitution, the judiciary is the most effective savior in which wrongdoings of the government and the legislatures need to be corrected. If the guardians of the Constitution, the judges themselves, are pulled into the accused’s container, who will decide them.
There turned into an RTI request to recognize how to file the grievance, if any, towards sitting or former Chief Justice, sitting or former judges of both Supreme Court and High Courts? It seems to be an easy question, but no one may want to solve it. No citizen can document a complaint, grievance, or FIR to make a criminal charge towards sitting or former judges. RTI questions relating to judges move across the President’s office, law minister, Prime Minister, comes returned to the office of the Chief Justice of India and hit the wall.
The Constitution of India does now not offer any mechanism to inquire into the proceedings towards the sitting or former judges, a lot, much less in opposition to the Chief Justice of India. So away in India, no Chief Justice of India has been accused of any misconduct. Only whilst Parliament initiates court cases for the impeachment of a judge, the inquiry into misconduct is pondered. Article 124(four) starts offevolved with phrases “a Judge of Supreme Court shall now not be eliminated from his workplace…”, observed through an exception for impeachment. Only Parliament can resolve to get rid of a judge. These provisions do not specially say about the impeachment of the Chief Justice. But the expression ‘decide’ includes the Chief Justice also, by using implication. So there has been no occasion for Parliament or Supreme Court so far to think of probing ‘misconduct’ allegations towards the CJI.
Article 124(five) says Parliament may also, using law, modify the manner for the presentation of cope with and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a decide, primarily based on which he may be impeached. Exercising this energy, Parliament exceeded the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, that’s a procedural statute that regulates “the method for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or disability of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and for the presentation of an cope with by way of Parliament to the President and for count number, connected therewith.”
Section three lays down that the investigation into the fees would be made by way of a committee of 3 individuals who might be decided on by the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha. One Bill, the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, that seeks to replace the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968, and every other, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, have not been passed. The 2006 Bill sought to establish a National Judicial Council to inquire into allegations of disability or misbehavior of judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court. It has defined ‘misbehavior’ as “willful or continual conduct which brings dishonor or disrepute to the judiciary; or willful or continual failure to perform the obligations of choice; or willful abuse of judicial workplace, corruption, lack of integrity; or committing an offense involving ethical turpitude…
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, suggested a definition of ‘misbehavior’ as “corruption or lack of integrity which incorporates handing over judgments for collateral or extraneous reasons, making needs for consideration in cash or type,” or “another movement… which has the effect of subverting the administration of justice”. Failure to declare assets and liabilities or willfully giving fake records turned into also included within the definition of ‘misbehavior.’ Sexual harassment allegation, if proved, will without a doubt be ‘misbehavior.’ As these Bills have not to turn out to be Acts. The 1968 Act did not define them, and things are left to the interpretation of the courts. Until the movement for impeachment is admitted in Parliament, it is legally impossible to represent an inquiry panel.