The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, May 09, 2017.
The CPIO has
not given copies of forwarding letters, names of ex CJIs, retired or serving
judges against whom complaints came, or the number of such complaints. Though
it appears that his apprehensions were quite genuine, he could not explain
under what exceptions such information could be denied.
Where to file
complaints against Judges, and what will happen to them? This question was
discussed when Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the appellant, holder of Guinness World
Record in publishing the highest number of “Letters to the Editor” on
socio-political issues, filed a request (1) “take action against judges suspect
of moral deviance: V R Krishna Iyer (ET 16.7.2013), news report from Jagran
dated 23.7.2013, and (2) “Supreme Court Judgment on NEET needs to be
immediately stayed suo motto by Supreme Court itself,” dated 20/23.7.2013.
He claimed
that submission about news item (2) was forwarded to Departments of Justice,
Legislative and legal respectively through Public Grievance portal. His RTI
request includes:
a)
copies of complaints received at Union Law Ministry
against retired Chief Justice of India Mr Justice Altamas Kabir, including one
dated 25.5.20`13 by Mr Justice (Retd) V R Krishna Iyer, and complaint by Dr M
Furquan as forwarded from President’s Secretariat to Union Law Ministry as
referred in news report.
b) action taken related to probe into leakage of SC verdict
dated 18.7.2013 in matter “Christian Medical College, Vellore & others v
Union of India,” on a private website several hours before its pronouncement in
the court, which was also brought before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Justice
P Sathasivam as per news report dated 23.7.2013 and action taken
c)
name of the authority before whom complaints against CJI
can be lodged
d) measures taken to check corruption, misconduct and other
irregularities in higher judiciary, etc.
The CPIO has
stated: The complaints received against judges of Supreme Court and High Courts
are forwarded by the Government to the Supreme Court or the concerned High
Courts, and that the Central government does not maintain records of such
complaints nor does it monitor action taken on them. He added further that the
government has moved the “Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill,” to
provide for a comprehensive mechanism for handling complaints against judges.
The Ministry
was not the appropriate authority to comment on judgment of Supreme Court, and
also they did not have any opinion on the matter. The disclosure of name of
former Chief Justice of India against whom complaints are filed will be
improper, and might have serious repercussions as it might become a subject of
discussion in media.
He said that
at most they can provide a number of complaints received and forwarded. All sorts of complaints have been filed by
several people including some of dissatisfied litigants. Such complaints are
sent to the concerned PPS to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court and High Courts
respectively. They maintain only forwarding letters of such complaints, as the
complaints run into numerous pages and they are not in a position to maintain
record of whole complaint.
The
representation dated 06.05.2013 of Dr. M. Furquan against Shri Justice Altamas
Kabir was forwarded to PPS to Chief Justice of India on 27.6.2013 for
appropriate action. The complaints
received against serving/retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts
are also forwarded to the Supreme Court and concerned High Courts for action
and as originals were forwarded, they do not have those copies.
If they
provided forwarding-letters, or names of former CJI or former/retired judges
against whom complaints were made, or their number, it would immediately land
in the hands of the media to hit headlines. If this request is allowed, the
number of harassing RTI requests will increase.
The CPIO
asked: why the contents of complaints which were not substantiated should be
disclosed? If dissatisfied litigants
file all sorts of complaints, others might seek under RTI their copies, names
of judges and contents that might be discussed in public with far-reaching
consequences like demoralizing the judges.
The Union
Ministry of Law and Justice has no authority to take action, or ask Supreme
Court to take action on news-reports, complaints and representations like those
mentioned in this RTI application. The
CPIO has not given copies of forwarding letters, names of ex CJIs, retired or
serving judges against whom complaints came, or the number of such complaints.
Though it
appears that his apprehensions were quite genuine, he could not explain under
what exceptions such information could be denied. Appellant has submitted
following letters which he obtained through RTI requests.
Ministry of
Home Affairs has written: “Reference is invited to your e-mail dated 18th
December, 2009 on the subject cited above.
It is true that both Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Mr. Justice Y.K.
Sabharwal were eligible for appointment to the post of Chairperson, NHRC as per
the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
However, it
was recorded in our notes, that their acceptance to the post is doubtful. In
the case of Justice R.C. Lahoti the then Home Secretary had spoken to the
learned Judge enquiring about his availability for the post. It appears that
Mr. Justice Lahoti indicated that he was otherwise very busy and would not be
in a position to accept the offer.
Because of
the adverse media and other reports with regard to Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal,
it was felt that the highly sensitive post of Chairperson NHRC may not be
offered to him. Accordingly, it was rerecorded on the file that Mr. Justice
R.C. Lahoti and Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal ‘are not inclined/not available for
different reasons’.
To one of
his RTI requests, the following reply was given by the Supreme Court:
I am to
inform you that pursuant to the Order passed by Central Information Commission
in the above referred matter, which was received in the Supreme Court Registry
by fax on 12th April, 2006, the matter was placed before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for orders.
The following
Order was thereupon passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. “The matter of accessing the information,
coming within the purview of Right to Information Act, has been provided in the
Act itself. The Act also provides remedial machinery in case any person is
aggrieved from the order passed or information provided by Central Public
Information of a public authority.
As far as the
present case is concerned, the record shows that the complaint made by Shri
Subhash Chandra Agrawal was placed before Hon’ble Shri R.C. Lahoti the then
Chief Justice of India, on 5th October, 2005. No action on the complaint was
directed and it was ordered to be kept in the file of Delhi High Court
maintained in the office of Chief Justice of India.
A letter
dated 10th February, 2005 written by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal was received
from the Secretary to President of India. It was placed before my learned predecessor
on 24th February, 2005. No action on this letter was, however, directed.
A reminder
dated 30th September, 2005 from Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal was also placed
before my learned predecessor and was directed to be kept in Delhi High Court
file. Neither Supreme Court nor Chief Justice of India is the appointing or
disciplinary authority in respect of judges of superior Courts, including
Judges of High Courts. Be that as it may, I have also examined the complaints
made by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal and find no merit in them.”
The appellant
submitted on 31.12.2016: “Supreme Court registry in its reply dated 21.04.2006
subsequent to CIC-verdict in petition-number CIC/A/3/2006 quoting the then
Chief Justice of India had stated “Neither Supreme Court nor Chief Justice of
India is the appointing or disciplinary authority in respect of Judges of
superior Courts, including Judges of High Courts”.
Question
raised is: who is appointing & disciplining authority for judges, who will
receive and handle the complaints against sitting and retired judges of
Constitutional Courts, etc. Referring
to representations/letters sent by eminent jurists like Justice V R Krishna
Iyer, and clippings in newspapers, the appellant wanted to know the measures
initiated to prevent corruption, and action on the representations.
The responses
raise serious questions about ‘administration of justice’, which will be dealt
in this series of articles. (Based on
Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. CPIO, Department of Justice, CIC/VS/A/2014/000989-SA,
decided on 3rd May 2017 by CIC)
.JPG)
.JPG)
