No, M’ lord
In a rare show of unity, members of the Rajya Sabha blocked the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009 at the introductory stage on Monday.
In a rare show of unity, members of the Rajya Sabha blocked the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009 at the introductory stage on Monday. Members from across political parties opposed clause six of the bill which exempted judges of high courts and the Supreme Court from being brought under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
It is mandatory for judges to disclose details of their assets to their respective chief justices but members of the public cannot demand to know about it. The politicians see no logic for this judicial privilege which they feel goes against the constitutional principle of equality before law.
This is not a case of politicians versus the judiciary. The parliamentarians are responding to the public perception that corruption is growing among the judiciary and there is a need to check it. One of the ways of doing so is to make it mandatory for judges to declare their assets. At the moment, judges have to disclose their assets to their respective chief justices but the information remains there, out of the public’s reach. The demand is that this last veil of secrecy should be removed through law.
It is surprising that Union law minister Veerappa Moily should have underestimated the strong views of the members and should have brought forward a legislation which did not address an important aspect of the issue. He tried to mollify the House by saying that a separate bill dealing with judicial corruption will be brought and that the government has in mind comprehensive judicial reforms.
It is clear that government does not want to be on a collision course with the judiciary, and is handling the issue with kid gloves as it were. At the same time, seeing the mood of his political colleagues, Moily has said he will come back with the bill to the House after evolving a consensus.
There is no need for government to shy away from dealing with the issue of judicial corruption in a frank and fair manner. The fear that it might erode the faith of the people in the courts is misplaced.
As a matter of fact, this could prove to be an effective way of infusing greater transparency in the judicial system and of strengthening the credibility of the courts. Then why this coyness? By agreeing to this provision, the judges will only strengthen the institution, not weaken it.
It is mandatory for judges to disclose details of their assets to their respective chief justices but members of the public cannot demand to know about it. The politicians see no logic for this judicial privilege which they feel goes against the constitutional principle of equality before law.
This is not a case of politicians versus the judiciary. The parliamentarians are responding to the public perception that corruption is growing among the judiciary and there is a need to check it. One of the ways of doing so is to make it mandatory for judges to declare their assets. At the moment, judges have to disclose their assets to their respective chief justices but the information remains there, out of the public’s reach. The demand is that this last veil of secrecy should be removed through law.
It is surprising that Union law minister Veerappa Moily should have underestimated the strong views of the members and should have brought forward a legislation which did not address an important aspect of the issue. He tried to mollify the House by saying that a separate bill dealing with judicial corruption will be brought and that the government has in mind comprehensive judicial reforms.
It is clear that government does not want to be on a collision course with the judiciary, and is handling the issue with kid gloves as it were. At the same time, seeing the mood of his political colleagues, Moily has said he will come back with the bill to the House after evolving a consensus.
There is no need for government to shy away from dealing with the issue of judicial corruption in a frank and fair manner. The fear that it might erode the faith of the people in the courts is misplaced.
As a matter of fact, this could prove to be an effective way of infusing greater transparency in the judicial system and of strengthening the credibility of the courts. Then why this coyness? By agreeing to this provision, the judges will only strengthen the institution, not weaken it.