M A I N   N E W S

Uproar in Parliament over Justice Katju’s graft charge on judiciary
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, July 21
The revelation of an alleged executive-judiciary nexus in the elevation of a tainted district judge of Tamil Nadu to the High Court in 2004 today snowballed into a controversy that resonated in both Houses of Parliament and reignited demands for total transparency in the appointment of judges.

Demanding a probe into the issue, MPs belonging to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s AIADMK stalled the question hour proceedings in the Rajya Sabha and raised it during zero hour in the Lok Sabha.

Members of the AIADMK in the Lok Sabha in New Delhi on Monday. PTI Photo/TV GRAB

They cited the statement of Press Council Chairman Justice Markandey Katju, who has been the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and a Judge of the Supreme Court, that three Chief Justices of India (CJIs) — RC Lahoti, YK Sabharwal and KG Balakrishnan, who is at present Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, — had made “improper compromises” in the appointment and confirmation of the judge in question. The judge had granted bail to DMK chief M Karunanidhi in 2001 following his arrest by the Jayalalithaa government.

While Justices Lahoti and Sabharwal had extended the tenure of the judge, Justice Balakrishnan had made him a permanent judge but transferred him to the Andhra Pradesh HC. Denying the allegation, Justice Lahoti said “everything was a matter of record”, while Justice Balakrishnan made it clear that he had only endorsed the clearance given by the Madras HC CJ despite charges that the judge was close to the ruling DMK. According to Justice Katju, the DMK had put pressure through the ruling UPA at the Centre.

Congress leader HR Bhardwaj, who was the Union Law Minister at that time, put the blame on the judiciary for the elevation, but acknowledged that about 18 SC/ST MPs had met the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2004 and complained about those opposed to the judge.

Another former law minister M Veerappa Moily questioned the logic behind raking up a 10-year old issue. Nevertheless, such appointments were done by the HC and SC collegiums.

While BSP chief Mayawati was for an investigation, Sanjay Raut of the Shiv Sena and D Raja of the CPI raised questions on the timing of Justice Katju’s revelation after keeping quiet for a decade.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, an office-bearer of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), said: “The most important lesson from this example, which is by no means the only such example, is the dangers of lack of transparency in the appointment of judges.”

Had the people of the country known that such a dubious person was proposed to be appointed, they would have raised their voices against it and the pressure of public opinion would have shamed the collegium and prevented the elevation, he said.

He said even the proposed law for setting up a national-level Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), comprising ministers and judges, “could hardly be expected to do this job properly, especially when it functioned without transparency”.

“Unfortunately, neither the judiciary nor the government wants to have a rational and transparent system for selecting judges. Each just wants a greater part of the appointments pie, without ensuring that the system selects the most honest and competent judges,” Bhushan added.

The issue

* Press Council Chairman Justice Markandey Katju has alleged that there has been an executive-judiciary nexus in the elevation of a tainted district judge of Tamil Nadu to the High Court in 2004

* He has alleged that three CJIs - RC Lahoti, YK Sabharwal and KG Balakrishnan - had made "improper compromises" in the appointment and confirmation of the judge in question