There are bulk of Articles under the Constitution of India which influences judicial appointment and decision-making which seems politically viable. Idea behind establishing judicial standard committee is to create a transparent system in the smooth functioning of the democratic country .The ideology of Democracy has set a belief in the mind of the throng that only people can change the world either run by moron or mentor.
Such amendment in the field of judiciary is not only confined to India but even Australia is planning for Sentencing Policy Bill which will give the judiciary guidelines on penalties is one of a string of new laws the government will introduce next year(2013).Such guidelines could be fruitful even in india and this will try to reduce a kind of uncertainty and biasness that e feces today.We have to go for constitutional amendement so that we could set up some Constitutional-Democratic mechanism
It is totally impermissible for the legislature to strike upon the independence and fearlessness of the judiciary. A judge of a superior court cannot be treated as an employee of the government. The present Bill is incapable of salvage and must be rejected in totality. In a system where half the litigants must necessarily lose their cases, and where most of the complaints against judges are frivolous and made by disgruntled litigants, this bill, if implemented, would mark the beginning of the end of the judiciary. Justice Verma has rightly that any machinery for investigation should be free from the executive, as the principle of judicial independence should not be compromised. Our Constitution has made various provisions to ensure that the judiciary is completely insulated from the executive. This concept of separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be changed. Even in the present regime involving removal of judges, the adjudication of the complaint is by the judiciary whose findings form the basis for eventual consideration by the Parliament.
It is true that judicial commissions exist in other countries like the U.S. and Canada, but their reach does not extend to the apex court. Also, adopting such structures from other countries without having regard to the unique conditions existing in ours, is untenable and fraught with the danger of destabilizing our delicate constitutional balance. The term ‘misbehaviour’ should not be rigidly defined and must be an inclusive definition, i.e. a definition where it is possible to add various categories of misbehavior as they become apparent[1]. The Bill also provides a list of standards of judicial conduct to which all judges are expected to adhere. Sixteen of the 18 enumerated standards are derived from the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life” adopted at a Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997. However, the very idea of statutorily providing for judicial standards, irrespective of their content, is violative of judicial independence.
Demands for change to existing systems in the judiciary must be met rationally, bearing in mind the objectives sought to be achieved. The first site of change must be in the process of judicial appointments. The present system where judges of the superior courts are chosen based on undisclosed criterion in largely unknown circumstances reflects an increasing democratic deficit. The legitimacy of the judiciary ultimately flows from public support, which cannot be maintained without a transparent and open selection process.
The guiding principle should always be like that there should be accountability and must be, but let it always be commensurate with judicial independence and impartiality. Ultimately, the appropriate balance between competing principles must be found in something that is best suited to our constitutional setup and is, in that sense, uniquely Indian. The citizens of India deserve no less.
Still, initiation taken by our lawmakers and their commendable work in strengthening third pillar is highly appreciable.We cannot revamp everything in one shot, it is slow and steady process.We cannot directly intrude upon the privacy of any institution.We have framed each institution independent of each other and their work and activities should be prasied much rather being criticised.We must have full faith in our own institution and abide by the role and measures taken by them at each step.
No comments:
Post a Comment