[nukkad] Guarding the Guardians

[Venu <>]

The Centre proposes to establish a National Judicial Council to examine
allegations of misconduct or incapacity against senior judges, but questions
remain over just how much teeth it should have.

An interesting article by Omair Ahmed at India Together website. Here is the
link for those who are interested in reading the full article.

http://www.indiatogether.com/2008/jan/law-judges.htm

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL

 The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 establishes a National Judicial Council
(NJC) to conduct inquiries into allegations of incapacity or misbehaviour by
High Court and Supreme Court judges.

The NJC shall consist of the Chief Justice of India, two Supreme Court
judges and two High Court Chief Justices to investigate High Court judges;
or the Chief Justice of India and four Supreme Court judges to investigate
Supreme Court judges.

The NJC shall investigate complaints submitted by any person, or upon
receiving a reference from Parliament based on a motion moved by 50 Rajya
Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha MPs. It may also entertain complaints from any other
source.

If the allegations are proven, the NJC may impose minor measures or
recommend the removal of the judge. Removal of a judge shall be through
impeachment by Parliament.

A judge may appeal to the Supreme Court against his removal or against any
minor measures imposed upon him.
CONCERNS
The NJC, in consonance with recommendations of the Law Commission, is
composed solely of serving members of the Supreme Court and High Court. The
Standing Committee has stated that there should be wider participation in
the process.

The Bill allows a judge to appeal his removal before the Supreme Court after
impeachment. The Standing Committee has observed that this would undermine
the finality of a Presidential Order that should not be challenged.

The Standing Committee cautioned against an open system of complaints by any
person, and suggested an impartial Empowered Committee to filter all
complaints before they were investigated by the NJC. The Law Commission had
stated that the provisions of the Bill, including minor measures, would
withstand constitutional scrutiny. While the Standing Committee agreed, it
recommended a re-examination of its constitutional validity. The inquiry by
the NJC is to be in camera, and not in an open court. The Supreme Court had
held in a previous case that the judge being investigated had the right to
request a public trial.


---


[This message contained attachments that have been removed.]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you have to make a choice and don't make it, that is in itself a choice. 
-William James, psychologist (1842-1910)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To join/leave, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html