Bar & Bench: New
Delhi: Friday, February 08, 2013.
Justice
Verma: Except
for the statutory appointments like that of NHRC Chairman, which have to be
made, it should be kept to the minimum. Also, once you mandate that there will
be no extra payment for these posts that will take care of a lot of other
things. There are innumerable commissions. The Nanavati Commission has been in
existence for quite a long time. Has he been able to find out anything more
than what the NHRC’s report of 2002 contains? In addition to that, he is known
to be doing arbitration. I am told that many persons heading commissions, even
the Law Commission are doing arbitration. How can you do that while you are
getting the salary of the Supreme Court judge, occupying official residence,
and getting all the perquisites of sitting judge? I guess it suits the
government to keep the judges in good humor.
I am appalled
on all the appointments, which have been made soon after retirement, without
any cooling off period. The appointments made immediately after the retirement
indicates that the judge had been approached while in office for his consent.
Even if we assume that it wouldn’t influence them, it does convey the
impression that one has already been assured of something the day he/she
retires. In a very recent case, a judge, who was yet to retire, had been
recommended by a Chief Justice to take an appointment to some office after both
had retired. In that context, when you say that only the judges should man
certain offices, I won’t blame the people when they think the judges are
distributing the offices only amongst themselves.
Even
post-retirement the conduct of the judges should be regulated. What the
government should do is give the salary as the lifetime pension to the judge.
And if the Prime Minister, President or Governor etc. in a matter of national
or public interest, seeks any opinion we should be bound to give that opinion.
The President and the Prime minister have consulted me after my retirement on
various issues. Giving the salary as pension is government’s decision but the
public exchequer would save money because if you calculate the total amount of
money paid to the former Chief Justices of India and former Supreme Court
judges in arbitration etc., it would be many times more than the salary of all
the retired judges.
Also, I don’t
think the recent judgment that all Chief Information Commissioners must be retired
judges is correct. There is no law to be decided; you only have to apply the
law, which is already present. Why do you need judges alone? Why can’t a lawyer
be appointed? Why can’t any other bureaucrat or a law professor be appointed?
Why can’t a social activist be appointed? Take the example of Aruna Roy, who
was the prime mover for the RTI Act; is she less qualified than any High Court
judge? Now these are things which really attract justified criticism.
Continue..........
.JPG)
.JPG)
