New Delhi, December 18
The Chief Justice of India, Mr Justice G.B. Pattanaik categorically said today that the Centre must accord the powers to the CJI “to prevent a judge from working or taking his salary for non-working.”
“If the Chief Justice of India has such powers then he can react immediately,” Mr Pattanaik observed in respect of taking action against judges for their alleged misconduct or grave acts of omission and commission.
He emphasised that the action the CJI takes against judicial impropriety or alleged misconduct depends entirely on the findings of the in-house inquiry committee of three judges — two of whom must be Chief Justices and the third a senior judge of different high courts in the country.
The discretion with the CJI is to get to the truth and correctness of the alleged complaints and allegations against the three Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Constitution does not confer any powers to the CJI but to recommend impeachment in the event of grave misconduct.
“That is our procedure as nobody can take action on the report submitted by former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice A.B. Saharya,” Mr Justice Pattanaik said in a relaxed interview on the eve of demitting office on attaining the age of superannuation.
He said Justice Saharya conducted an inquiry on receipt of what he described as the intelligence and press versions of the alleged involvement of Mr Justice Amarbir Singh Gill, Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill and Mr Justice M L Singhal in the PPSC scam.
Mr Justice Pattanaik said he did not agree with the mode of inquiry adopted by Justice Saharya. “The former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did whatever he thought was right. His (Justice Saharya’s) motive was good.”
The CJI pointed out that Mr Justice Amarbir Singh Gill had proceeded on leave till his retirement and would not be handling any judicial work. Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill’s action had been “deprecated” and warned. And the third judge, Mr Justice M.L. Singhal had been exonerated. There was also no move to transfer either Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill or Mr Justice Singhal from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In any case Mr Justice Singhal had only a short time left before retiring.
In this context, Mr Justice Pattanaik asked “why is the Press not giving us some clues so that we can proceed on that.” When his attention was drawn to the fact that members of the Fourth Estate had been proceeded against in Karnataka, he did not think any CJI would object to such information being made available nor curtail their freedom.
Mr Justice Pattanaik had no doubt that the prompt action taken by him in the short period of seven weeks when he occupied the high office of the CJI “will shake up the judiciary and definitely have some impact. I have no doubt about that.”
The CJI felt strongly in dealing firmly with grave misconduct and misdemeanours in the higher echelons of the judiciary. He underlined the need for “a permament committee” to quickly decide such matters. Such a committee can be headed by the CJI, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, the seniormost Chief Justice of the high courts and the Attorney-General in his capacity as a senior law officer of the Union Government.
While he is not averse to making public the report of the three-member judges panel headed by the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Mr Justice A C Lakshmanan, which probed the alleged involvement of the three judges in the money-for-jobs scam in Punjab, yet again the rules governing such inquiries is silent on this aspect.
“I don’t think it (the inquiry report) can be made public. I don’t see any infirmity in making it public. If there is an inquiry why should it not be made public,” Mr Justice Pattanaik wondered.
Mr Justice Pattanaik did not think that prima facie the National Judicial Commission was feasible. “I don’t see a necessity for that.” At the same time, the rules concerning the judges or the Constitution itself need to be amended. “After all, power has to be conferred on somebody.”
He spoke of the criticism that
the collegium of five judges of the Supreme Court was finding it difficult to meet. Under the circumstances he had his doubts about bringing together the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the CJI and others to decide on various issues, including action against errant judges in the proposed National Judicial Commission.
On judicial activism, he believed that normally the courts should not encroach upon the territory of another constitutional functionary. He was also against monitoring as it was not congenial for growth. This was particularly so when a functionary was doing the job according to the law.
Mr Justice Pattanaik said he had no intentions of recommending another judge to probe the kickbacks in defence deals or the Tehelka inquiry. He admitted to having contacted one or two judges for the purpose but they did not agree. Therefore, the ball in appointing a Chairman of the Tehelka inquiry after Mr Justice K. Venkataswami stepped down was in the Union Government’s court.
Asked about the in-house inquiry headed by Mr Justice C K Thakkar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, into the alleged sex scandal in Karnataka, the CJI said they had now sought more time to complete the task.
As regards the in-house inquiry headed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court into certain allegations connected with the Rajasthan High Court, it has already submitted its report. Since then fresh allegations of corruption have surfaced and Mr Justice Pattanaik has asked the inquiry panel to probe those as well.
Before proceeding for a farewell reception by the Bar Association of India, Mr Justice Pattanaik said he became the CJI in a “very tense, painstaking and also interesting” atmosphere. “It was an unfortunate moment when I became the CJI because of the alleged scandal connected with the Karnataka High Court. On becoming head (of the Supreme Court of India) I must accept the blame and can’t exonerate myself.”
