Judiciary and threat _ Apex Court.

Judiciary  and threat _ Apex Court.

The Supreme Court has appointed former Chief Justice of the Apex Court AK Singh to investigate allegations of conspiracy in connection with sexual harassment against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Patnaik has been entrusted with the task of investigation. Patnaik, Advocate Uddhav Singh will investigate the allegations of Bains, which said that trying to trap the Chief Justice is being tried.

Bench of three judges including Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman and Deepak Gupta have been instructed to cooperate with Justice Patnaik on the need for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and IB and the Delhi Police Commissioner.

The court said that after completion of the investigation, Justice Patnaik will file a test report in a sealed envelope.

The Supreme Court has clarified that Patnaik will only take cognizance of the matter of corruption in the judiciary. They will have no relation with the sexual harassment case of the Chief Justice.

Matter Related to Issue

The Supreme Court has vowed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

The Court believes that such allegations are part of a big conspiracy created by dissident employees, corporate personalities and fixers gangs.

In the Special Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, a young lawyer, Utsav Singh Bains, filed an affidavit in a sealed envelope claiming that the he was offered to 1.5 crore rupees to entrap CJI in a false case.

Bains has claimed with significant evidence that a lobby is active in defaming the Chief Justice and the Judiciary.

It is worth noting that the dismissed woman on April 19, 2019 wrote a letter to 22 judges of the Supreme Court, in which it was accused of sexual harassment by the CJI in October 2018.

Law: Insult of Court

According to the law of contempt, if a person or media house accuses the judges or the justice system, so that the judiciary gets involved in a dispute, then the judiciary has power to  punished for this insult.

This type of contempt of the media is termed as creative contempt. It is included in the definition of criminal contempt under the contempt of court of India, (Section 2 (c) (iii) of 1971).

While the judges need protection against the motivated charges, because the demand for the due process is that the investigation of any case should be prompt, complete, fair and fair.

Such extraordinary developments in the country's highest judicial body provide an opportunity to reconsider some of the big questions about judicial accountability.

The Constitution of India provides judges protection from the wishes of the people, parliament and powerful executive. Impeachment is a political process in which MPs vote with party lines.

In 1993, the impeachment proceedings against Justice V. Ramaswamy failed due to the Congress voting against impeachment.

Last year, the chairman of the Rajya Sabha had rejected the opposition's move to run the impeachment on the CJI Deepak Mishra.

The Constitution does not define 'misbehavior' and 'incompetence'.

Judge (Enquiry Bill)], 2006 in which the National Judicial Council was set up to investigate allegations of incompetence or misuse of the High Courts and Supreme Court judges. 'Abuse' has been defined.

According to this, a deliberate behaviour which is to humiliate or defame the judiciary, or failure to full fill the duties of a judge, or misuse of judicial post, corruption, lack of integrity or crime related to moral constraints (misbehaviour) Come under category.

The Supreme Court in Bhattacharjee and others (1995) said that there can not be a definite definition of 'misbehaviour'. But if the judge's conduct is questioning the credibility of the judiciary, then it should be treated as abuse.

The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010

This bill provides for maximum judicial independence and judicial increase of accountability.

It also provides for a judicial system to investigate complaints about the misdeeds and to regulate the process of investigation.

There is a provision to keep the power of impeachment against the Supreme Court or a judge of the High Court only with the power of the Parliament.

In this, there is a proposal to change the existing system and simultaneously set up more accountability to investigate complaints of malpractice or inability of the Supreme Court or High Court Judge.

For consideration of the Bill's complaints and for the culprits, which can be imposed upon completion of the investigation, apart from providing a comprehensive system, raises the judicial standards and also promotes the posting judges for their assets / liabilities. Declare.

Process of complaining of criminal case against CJI.

In the case of Ramaswamy (1991), the Supreme Court has clarified that the judicial post is constitutional, so they can not be removed under criminal cases.

It is necessary to get the consent of the Chief Justice of India before registering a criminal case against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court.

For the case against CJI, the government is required to seek advice from the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, after which, decision will be taken in respect of advance proceedings.

In-house-mechanism is a system for complaints of criminal abuse against the CJI or the Supreme Court judges.

Under this, a committee of judges is constituted to investigate the matter and the report related to the investigation is handed over to the Chief Justice.

After this the decision of the Chief Justice is taken after consultation with the other judges.

If the charges against the judge are proved, there is a provision of impeachment only in the Constitution, there is no provision for punishment.

Judicial accountability and rule of law

Although the independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the constitution, but it is not infinite in itself.

but Keeping judicial performance beyond check will be impartial, because liberty without accountability is silly freedom.

Without responsibility, power is against constitutionalism. Accountability of public servants, including judges, is the essence of a mature democracy.

Judicial accountability promotes at least three separate values, rule of law, public trust in judiciary and institutional responsibility.

Judicial independence and judicial accountability are purposeful tools designed to meet constitutional objectives.

The rule of law demands judicial accountability. Responsiveness makes performance of power more efficient and effective.

Conclusion

The crisis on India's judiciary has come about its credibility and reliability. The matter is more alarming because the last hope of justice for the common citizen of the country is rich and poor and the power establishment is done only by the Supreme Court. Legitimate justice obtained from here is considered to be final, as well as beyond doubt. If such things are found in the public about this supreme institution of justice then doubts arise about its credibility. If judges who are judging serious charges, then this important pillar of democracy can not be worse than this. The allegations are true or false, it should be investigated. It should also be checked whether any conspiracy is being made to destabilize the judiciary

  

*****************************************************************************************************************

This is nothing but knowledge sharing initiative of author and not intend to accost any one in any manner or for any other purpose whatsoever. 

*****************************************************************************************************************