The All India Judges Association has passed a resolution condemning Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s letter against Supreme Court judge Justice N.V. Ramana as a “deliberate attempt to scandalise and coerce the judiciary”.
The Association said the “tone, tenor and timing of the letter portrays malafide intent and appears to be orchestrated for hidden agendas”.
What’s the issue?
AP CM’s complaint is with respect to Supreme Court Justice N.V. Ramana’s alleged influencing of posting of cases in the State High Court.
The complaint also alleges the hostile attitude of some High Court judges towards the current state government of Andhra Pradesh and their deliberate and unsubstantiated striking down of the state government’s decisions and orders.
This amounts to an accusation of misconduct, corruption and the political bias among the judges.
Why is this issue important?
Though there have been previous instances of such allegations against certain judges, the current situation is unprecedented given that the current allegations have been made by a constitutional body, The Chief Minister of a state. This marks an open conflict between the judiciary and a Chief Minister.
But, How are allegations of misconduct against judges dealt with?
There are two broad alternatives when it comes to complaints against sitting judges:
Impeachment.
In-house procedure.
Let’s see what an in-house procedure means?
Since 1997, judges have adopted an ‘in-house procedure’ for inquiring into charges.
Under this, when a complaint is received against a High Court judge:
The CJI should decide on the authenticity of the complaint and decide whether it is frivolous or it involves serious misconduct and impropriety.
The CJI would ask for the concerned judge’s response if he feels the complaint is serious, The CJI may close the matter if he is satisfied with the response.
Suppose, If the CJI feels that a deeper probe is necessary:
He forms a three-member committee consisting of only the judiciary members.
The composition of this three-member committee depends on the position of the judge against whom the complaint has been filed.
The inquiry it holds is of the nature of a fact-finding mission and is not a formal judicial inquiry involving examination of witnesses.
The committee can give two kinds of recommendations, one where it deems the misconduct as serious enough to require removal from office, or that it is not serious enough to warrant removal.
Actions taken on the recommendations of the committee:
If the committee deems the charges against the judge as genuine, the concerned judge will be urged to resign or seek voluntary retirement.
If the judge is unwilling to quit, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned would be asked to withdraw judicial work from him.
The executive i.e, the President and the Prime Minister are informed of the situation and are expected to begin the process of impeachment.
If the misconduct does not warrant removal, the judge would be advised accordingly.
Concerns against the manner of the release of the letter in the public domain:
The public disclosure of the letter could have compromised the dignity, independence and majesty of the top court and the A.P. High Court.
It could amount to scandalising the judiciary in the eyes of the people by sensationalising the issue and could also be deemed an interference with the administration of justice.
In such cases the faith of the people in the judiciary and the rule of law are at stake.
Constitutional provisions in this regard:
Article 121 and Article 211 of the Indian Constitution expressly bar Parliament and the state legislatures to discuss the conduct of any judge.
Besides, the SC in the Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) case has held that complaints against sitting judges should be kept confidential.
BY-RISHABH GOYAL