How SC deals with errant judges, works around constitutional limitations

Since the justice tendered an apology, the SC dropped its intervention. But adjacent a mild reproach by the apex tribunal against a justice of a law tribunal is rare, and sends a beardown message. The concern besides highlights the law limitations connected however the judiciary tin subject judges.

Impeachment oregon nothing

Judges of law courts bask a large grade of extortion to guarantee that they tin workout their powers without fearfulness of interference from the executive. However, this besides poses a hard question: who volition ticker the watchdog?

As per the Constitution, impeachment, which is simply a governmental process, is the lone recourse to dealing with errant judges. According to Article 124(4), a justice of the Supreme Court (or immoderate High Court) tin beryllium removed from bureau lone “by an bid of the President passed aft an code by each House of Parliament supported by a bulk of the full rank of that House and by a bulk of not little than two-third of the members of the House contiguous and voting has been presented to the President successful the aforesaid league for specified removal connected the crushed of proved misbehaviour oregon incapacity”.

“Proven misbehaviour” oregon “incapacity” are the lone 2 grounds for removal of a justice of the law court. This, on with the level of governmental statement required to walk an impeachment motion, makes the modular for impeachment precise high.

Impeachment proceedings person been triggered lone 5 times successful past — against Justice V Ramaswami (SC, 1993), Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court, 2011), Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court, 2015), Justice C V Nagarjuna (High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, 2017), and past CJI Justice Dipak Misra (2018). The proceedings, however, person ne'er been successful, though Justice Sen was impeached by Rajya Sabha and subsequently resigned.

Several actions mightiness autumn abbreviated of the modular for impeachment, oregon go hard to beryllium oregon make governmental statement connected — indiscipline, petty corruption, instances of bias, oregon similar successful the lawsuit of Justice Srishananda, questionable behaviour successful court. Given that the alternate to impeachment nether existent laws is to simply look the different way, implicit the years the SC has developed alternate ways of discipling judges.

Judicial intervention

The archetypal is done enactment connected the judicial side, arsenic successful the existent case.

In 2017, a five-judge Bench of the SC headed by past CJI Jagdish Khehar held Calcutta High Court’s C S Karnan blameworthy of contempt of court, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. This was successful effect to immoderate of Karnan’s actions arsenic a justice successful the Madras High Court, including the “sentencing” of SC judges to imprisonment, and accusing members of the judiciary of nepotism, casteism, and corruption. His transportation to the Calcutta HC successful 2016 besides took spot successful this context.

Karnan retired little than a period aft the SC verdict, and was taken into custody to service his sentence. But this acceptable an uneasy precedent, with galore voicing interest astir 1 law tribunal taking to task judges of another. While territory courts are nether the supervisory jurisdiction of the respective High Courts, the narration betwixt High Courts and the SC is different.

Veteran lawyer K K Venugopal had urged the apex tribunal to disregard the judge’s comments, and fto him discontinue with dignity. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had argued that transferring the judge, oregon holding him blameworthy of contempt is nary alternate to notifying him for impeachment.

As the tribunal of past resort, the SC’s connection is last and binding. This means that done judicial action, it tin nonstop a connection to errant judges, adjacent if specified a powerfulness is not defined successful the missive of the law.

Transfer policy

Another mode successful which the SC exercises power implicit High Court judges is done the Collegium. The SC Collegium, comprising 5 senior-most judges of the apex tribunal including the CJI, recommends the transportation of High Court judges.Given that the decisions of the Collegium are opaque, this transportation argumentation tin beryllium deployed arsenic a instrumentality to subject judges arsenic well.

The 2010 lawsuit of Justice P D Dinakaran is often cited arsenic an illustration of the transportation argumentation being deployed to woody with judicial corruption. Even arsenic proceedings for his removal arsenic a justice were pending earlier a parliamentary panel, the past Karnataka High Court justice was transferred to the Sikkim High Court. Dinakaran was facing allegations of onshore grabbing and corruption. The determination was criticised arsenic lone “transferring corruption” alternatively than dealing with it. Eventually, Justice Dinakaran resigned successful 2011.