Benches in Court

While in the High Courts, Judges sit singly or in a division bench ( i.e. a bench of 2 judges ) or sometimes in a full bench ( i.e. a bench of 3 or more judges ) to hear cases, in the Supreme Court judges always sit in benches, usually of 2 judges, but occasionally of 3 or more . No judge sits singly in the Supreme Court.

 The purpose of forming benches of 2 or more judges is that a single person, however intelligent and learned he may be, is likely to have views which are one sided and subjective, with his personal prejudices, predilections and views influencing his judgment . But when 2 or more persons sit together and discuss a matter, the decision becomes more objective, with personal angularities rubbed off, and all aspects considered. Errors of a single person are often corrected by another. This is the reason for forming benches of 2 or more persons.

 But for a bench of 2 or more persons to function effectively, it is necessary that each of the judges on it must apply his/her mind independently, and express his/her own views.

When I sat for the first time with Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra in the Supreme Court, before entering the Courtroom I had a few minutes talk with her. I told her " Sister, although I am the senior member on our bench, in the Court we are equals. Please feel free to disagree with me whenever you wish, I will never be offended or take it amiss. In fact the very purpose of a division bench is that both judges should apply their minds, and not that the junior judge should sit like a dummy. In fact sometimes I may be on the wrong track, and then you can correct me. You can also put questions to the lawyer arguing a case directly, and not necessarily through me ". 

At this she said that I was very gracious, and that no senior judge with whom she sat in the High Court or Supreme Court had ever spoken like this to her.

 What I found in my long career in the judiciary is that often ( though not always ) senior judges on a bench resent it if the junior judge disagrees with him, or even puts a question to a counsel arguing a case directly. They feel that the junior judge is misbehaving if he does so, and expect him to sit like a dummy, and just sign on the dotted line on the judgment prepared by them. But this way the very purpose of forming a bench is undermined.

 Once when I was sitting in a division bench with a senior judge in the Allahabad High Court, after hearing the arguments of the lawyers the senior judge would dictate orders without even consulting me. When I told him that he should consult me before dictating orders, he felt very offended.

 The old tradition of the Allahabad High Court was that the Chief Justice would sit with the seniormost judge in the Court. The reason for this was that a very senior judge could disagree with the Chief Justice if he thought the Chief Justice was wrong, whereas junior judges, though theoretically they too could disagree with him, in practice would rarely have the courage to do so.

 In recent times, however, this sound practice has largely been given up. When I was a Judge in the Supreme Court, I found the Chief Justices would usually sit with junior judges, who would rarely disagree with him, probably thinking it is not good manners to disagree with the Chief Justice..

In Constitution benches ( i.e. benches of 5 or more judges ), the senior judges should sit with the Chief Justice ( if he was on the bench ). But what I found was that often junior judges were made to sit with the Chief Justice who would rarely disagree with him, thus undermining the very purpose of forming such a bench.

 I will conclude by relating an interesting incident in the Allahabad High Court a century ago ( related in the memoirs of my grandfather Dr. K.N. Katju ) 

Sir Henry Richards was at that time Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court ( he was Chief Justice from 1914 to 1919 ) and sitting with him on the bench hearing criminal appeals was the senior most puisne judge of the Court, Sir Pramoda Charan Banerji. While Sir Henry Richards was known to be a liberal judge who was not readily disposed to accept the police version in every criminal case, Sir Pramoda Charan was considered by the bar as a severe, or to use a vulgar expression, a 'convicting' judge.

 A criminal appeal against a death sentence came up for hearing before this bench.

After the appeal was heard for some time, the 2 judges ceased to be fellow travellers in the same direction. Instead of talking with each other, they were talking at each other through the lawyers.

When one of them would put a question to the lawyer,the other judge would intervene by saying " Probably your answer to this would be----:, and so on.

Soon the judges ceased to be even on talking terms with each other, and each was ostentatiously sitting up in his chair looking around elsewhere.

After arguments were over, it was obvious there would be divergent judgments, and the matter would have to be referred to another bench.

The Chief Justice, being the senior judge on the bench, began dictating his judgment first. After a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence he ended up by saying that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the accused, and giving him the benefit of doubt would acquit him.

 Then began Sir Pramoda Charan. He dictated his long judgment countering the comments of the Chief Justice, and everyone in Court thought that the matter would now be sent to another bench.

 But lo and behold ! At the end of his lengthy judgment he was heard dictating the conclusion " However, inasmuch as the learned Chief Justice has come to a different conclusion in favour of the accused, I am not prepared to dissent. I therefore agree that the appeal should be allowed and the accused. "

Everyone present in Court was electrified, the most being Sir Henry Richards himself. He could not believe his ears. Throughout the delivery of Sir Pramoda Charan's judgment, Sir Henry Richards had been sitting deep in contemplation, with his eyes half closed, but as soon as he heard the concluding words he suddenly sat up, as if an electric shock had been given to him. His face glowed, and he simply beamed with joy, and almost looked like a blushing bride.

 And then Sir Henry rose from his chair, his face wreathed in smiles, and bowed low before Sir Pramoda Charan.

  Some people commented that it was wrong for Sir Pramoda Charan to have acquited the accused having found him guilty. After all, each judge on a bench must apply his mind independently

 Others said that Sir Pramoda Charan had done the right thing, as it would be monstrous for one judge to say that he would hang the accused when the other judge was in favour of acquittal.

 I leave it to the readers of this post to express their views on this.

One Way to Fix the Collegium is to Televise its Proceedings

The hearing has begun before the Supreme Court on the question about reforming the Collegium system of appointment of judges. It is almost unanimously agreed that the collegium system lacks transparency, accountability and objectivity because of the secrecy, opaqueness and nepotism it involves, and is in need of glasnost and perestroika – as Justice Kurian Joseph said in his concurring judgment invalidating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

In paragraph 106 of his dissenting judgment in the NJAC case, Justice Chelameshwar said:

“As Bentham has observed, ‘In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing..’
Transparency is an aspect of rationality. The need for transparency is more in the case of the appointment process. Proceedings of the collegium were absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history, barring occasional leaks. Ruma Pal , J. is on record – “Consensus within the collegium is sometimes resolved through a trade-off, resulting in dubious appointments with disastrous consequences for the litigants and the credibility of the judicial system. Besides, institutional independence has also been compromised by growing sycophancy and ‘lobbying’ within the system.”

Justice Kurian Joseph, agreeing with the above observations, said:

“I agree with Chelameswar, J. that the present collegium system lacks transparency, accountability and objectivity. The trust deficit has affected the credibility of the collegium system, as sometimes observed by the civic society. Quite often, very serious allegations and many a time not unfounded too, have been raised that its approach has been highly subjective. Deserving persons have been ignored wholly for subjective reasons, social and other national realities were overlooked, certain appointments were purposely delayed so as either to benefit vested choices or to deny such benefits to the less patronised, selection of patronised or favoured persons were made in blatant violation of the guidelines resulting in unmerited, if not, bad appointments.

“The dictatorial attitude of the collegium seriously affecting the self-respect and dignity, if not, independence of judges, the court, particularly the Supreme Court, often being styled as the court of the collegium, the looking forward syndrome affecting impartial assessment, etc., have been some of the other allegations in the air for quite some time. These allegations certainly call for a deep introspection as to whether the institutional trusteeship has kept upto the expectations of the framers of the Constitution.”

As reported in the press, Fali Nariman, the doyen of the Indian bar, said, “In Dinakaran’s case, I must say something. Very eminent people from Chennai wanted to say something about Dinakaran to the then CJI ( K.G. Balakrishnan ). Neither the CJI nor any of the members of the collegium agreed to meet them.. We were all hounded out. ”

Ad hoc, and prone to abuse

In this connection I may mention something in my personal knowledge.

When I came to know that the collegium was considering Dinakaran for elevation to the Supreme Court, I went to the chamber of Justice Kapadia, who was then a member of the collegium during a lunch interval and told him in great detail that when I was Chief Justice of Madras High Court, there were very serious allegations against Dinakaran (about alleged land grabs, etc ). I told Justice Kapadia that he was a member of the collegium while I was not, but that I had a duty to inform him about the facts, and now it was up to him to do what he wanted.

Despite my informing Kapadia, the collegium, headed by K.G. Balakrishnan went ahead and recommended Dinakaran for elevation to the Supreme Court, and it was just in the nick of time that the appointment was stalled because of the massive documentary evidence against Dinakaran produced by the Tamil Nadu lawyers, and impeachment proceedings against him by Parliament later.

Later, I reminded Kapadia that I had informed him of all the facts and said that if he had informed the collegium of what I had told him (which evidently he did not) the Supreme Court could have avoided the embarrassment the matter caused. Kapadia admitted that I had indeed informed him, but he could not do anything about it since the CJI (Balakrishnan) was pushing for Dinakaran’s elevation. But surely Kapadia could have informed the collegium of what I told him, and could have asked the collegium to invite me to present my views, which he evidently did not.

I may mention about another undeserving appointment made to the Supreme Court on the recommendation of the collegium. There was a judge originally from Kerala. He was transferred to four high courts, and everywhere he would hardly work, and left about 300-400 judgments undelivered in each place at the time of his transfer. When there was a move to bring him to the Supreme Court, a retired Supreme Court judge, also from Kerala, telephoned the then CJI Balakrishnan and asked why such an undeserving judge was being elevated. Justice Balakrishnan replied that there was no judge from his ‘community’ in the Supreme Court, and so one had to be appointed. Was this a valid reason for such appointment? And why did the other members of the collegium not object?

Even in the Supreme Court he hardly worked, and left many undelivered judgments on his retirement.

There was a further matter that I am privy to. A very senior judge in the Supreme Court, who later became CJI, wanted to get his sibling appointed judge of the Calcutta High Court. He reportedly told the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to recommend the sibling’s name, although the person was then almost 60 years of age (a high court judge retires at 62) and had hardly any practice. This was strongly objected to in writing  by the judge next in seniority to the Chief Justice of the High Court, a judge known to be upright and learned. This so annoyed the Supreme Court judge that he never allowed the Calcutta high court judge to come to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the conscientious judge retired as a chief justice of a high court, while the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court was duly rewarded for recommending the name of the sibling of the Supreme Court judge by himself being elevated to the Supreme Court.

Glasnost time

Confirmation hearing in 2005 of John Roberts, then a nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Credit: senate.gov

I can mention several other instances of recommendations of undeserving persons made by the collegium, most of whom were subsequently appointed, causing great harm to the judiciary.

My opinion is that to ensure transparency, accountability and objectivity, meetings and discussions in the collegium should be video recorded, archived and televised. After all, the people are supreme in a democracy, and the people have a right to know what transpires in the collegium meetings, because ultimately it is they who would be affected if a wrong appointment is made.

In the United States, persons being considered for elevation to the US Supreme Court have to appear before the Senate, where they are questioned by the members not only about their judicial views and performance but also about their personal life, and these proceedings are televised. In my opinion, the persons being considered should be asked to appear before the collegium, and questioned by its members in televised proceedings, so that there is public transparency both about what the collegium is looking for in a judge and what the judge herself or himself has to offer.

(Published first on The wire)

Indian judiciary is beyond redemption

When I said the same thing about the Indian judiciary, I was roundly condemned, and accused of being a publicity seeker. But now even the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association is saying basically what I said : the judicial system in India has collapsed, and is beyond redemption

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/bar-tells-supreme-court-step-out-in-burqa-to-see-what-people-think-of-you/

Choodis for ignoring Dattu's corruption

I am hereby presenting choodis to the following categories of people who have turned a Nelson's eye to Dattu's massive corruption :

1. Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court. Taking inspiration from Gen. V.K.Singh, I have coined for them a new term : ' Lawstitutes '. While posing to be men of honour, they will not do anything to displease sitting Judges, though once the Judge has retired, they will not hesitate to shamelessly kick him, as I have experienced myself .

2. Mediapersons, who have already been branded as 'presstitutes'. They will maintain the Buddha's ' noble silence ' vis-a-vis sitting judges

3. Members of Parliament, who are, of course, politisstitutes.

   I can also safely predict that a couple of months before Dattu retires on 2nd December 2015, suddenly a clamour for his impeachment will begin, which of course would mean nothing as Dattu would  retire shortly thereafter, having enjoyed to the hilt the fruits of office, and making the impeachment process infructuous

 Hari Om

Dattu and cowardly Indian media

 I have posted 4 articles on Dattu ( the present CJI ) on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in. Please read them. Dattu is prima facie thoroughly corrupt, as these articles disclose. However, the cowardly Indian media does not even investigate these allegations, as I had requested them to do

Questions to Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad

 Dattu is so shameless that he will never reply to the serious allegations in the dossier against him, or explain where he got the money for building/acquiring the palatial house in Bangalore ( whose photos I have posted on facebook )..Most of the the Indian media are even more shameless since they would not even investigate the serious charges, although I had personally given copies of the dossier to many leading newspapers well before Dattu's elevation as CJI.. Gen. V.K.Singh is vindicated.

 That brings us to Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was at the relevant time the Union Law Minister, and to whom also I gave a copy of the dossier, well before Dattu was appointed CJI, with the request that he investigate the serious charges against Dattu contained in the dossier.

 Now here are some questions for Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad :

1. Is it, or is it not, true that over a month before it was announced by the Govt. of India that Dattu would be the next CJI, I sent you a copy of the dossier containing several serious allegations against Dattu, particularly relating to the land deals in his and his family members name, many of them in clear violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,which revealed he had amassed a fortune, and the palatial house he had built/acquired in Bangalore ?

2. If your answer to the above is in the affirmative, what action did you take  thereafter ? Did you inform about the dossier to the Prime Minister, and if you did, what action did you and the Prime Minister take ? Did you and the Prime Minister get the allegations against Dattu verified, or you simply ignored them ?

3. If you got them verified, through whom did you get them verified, and where is the report of the agency which verified them ?

4. Did you or some other member of your government show the dossier to Dattu and ask for his explanation ? If not, why not ? If yes, what explanation did he give ? Did you specifically ask where he got the money for building/acquiring the palatial house in Bangalore, and acquiring the several plots in his and his family members name, and why was his wife's name mentioned showing the name of her father and not himself ? Is it true that several of the transactions were in violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ?

5. Every Supreme Court Judge has to give a list of his assets which are put up on the Supreme Court website ( supremecourtof india.nic.in ) Did you, or did you not, look into the list of assets disclosed by Dattu ? It seems he has not mentioned therein about the palatial house in Bangalore which he has built/acquired, and many of the plots he and his family members have acquired in violation of law ( particularly the Karnataka land Reforms Act ) or the relevant schemes ? Did you ask Dattu for his explanation for this omission ?

Investigate Dattu

This is an email I received today from the Economic Times

Date: 12 May 2015 8:43:44 pm IST

To: justicekatju@gmail.com

Subject: Request-response required-Urgent

Sir,

1-The Economic Times is working on a story on Chief Justice of India

HL Dattu. I have been given to understand that a complaint regarding

assets of Justice Dattu and his wife was forwarded to you. May i

request you to share details of follow up action, if any, and your

views on the said complaint.

2-The complaint was signed by Pt Narendra Sharma, he had attached all

the relevant documents, and in August 2014, forwarded it to you for

necessary action.

I shall be extremely grateful, if you could forward your comments, on

the above mentioned issues, at the earliest

Regards

The Economic Times Delhi

Here is my reply :

From: mark_katju@yahoo.co.in

Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:05

To: markandey katju

Dear Sir,

 I am in receipt of your email.

At present I am in Vancouver, and am likely to return to India in mid-July.

 I did indeed receive a dossier from someone containing documentary proof of a large amount of properties amassed by Justice Dattu during his judicial career. This was before he became CJI. I got several copies made of the dossier, and gave a copy each to Mr.Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court and his son Prashant, Dhananjaya Mahapatra of Times of India ( who came to my house to collect a copy, and with whom I had a detailed discussion about the matter ), and journalists of Indian Express and The Hindu. I also sent one copy to Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the then Union Law Minister. I suggest you ask some of these people for the dossier as they may be having their copy which I gave them. Regrettably, none of them did anything in the matter, although I only requested them to investigate because if the allegations in the dossier were correct Dattu should not be made the CJI

 I do not have a copy of the dossier with me at present, but I have it with me in my flat in Noida, which I can give you on my return. However, my recollection of the contents of the dossier, which I had read carefully, is as follows :

There are a large number of plots in or near Bangalore purchased in the name of Justice Dattu’s wife Gayathri. Photocopies of the sale deeds by which they were purchased are in the dossier. These sale deeds mention the name of Justice Dattu’s wife Gayathri, but interestingly enough describe her as daughter of Guravayoor ( probably her father’s name ), and not wife of Justice Dattu. This is strange, since the plots were purchased long after her marriage. Was this done to conceal these transactions ?

Most of these plots were purchased in violation of the provisions of the Karnatak Land Reforms Act, which state that a person having family income of over Rs. 2 lacs per year cannot buy land in the rural areas of Karnataka. At the time of purchase these plots were all technically in the rural area, though in reality they had become part of Bangalore as the city ( like all cities in India ) had expanded. Justice Dattu’s income at the time of purchase was over Rs. 15 lacs per year ( the approximate  salary of High Court Judges ), and so his wife illegally purchased these plots.

3. Justice Dattu has built a palatial house in Bangalore, allegedly on 1200 sq.m. land  Possibly that house itself would be worth Rs 50 crore or more. Someone sent me photos of that house by email, and I will try to retrieve them and send them to you.

One plot of land in Bangalore was allotted to Justice Dattu, though it could not have been allotted to him because under the relevant scheme such plots could only be allotted to an employee of the Karnataka High Court. A High Court Judge is not an employee ( he holds a Constitutional post, and is no one’s employee ). Justice Dattu was a Karnataka High Court Judge at that time.

One plot of land in Bangalore was allotted to Justice Dattu under a scheme which had a term that a person already having a plot of land in Bangalore could not be allotted a plot. Justice Dattu already had plots in Bamgalore, either in his own name or in his wife or children’s name at that time.

      Several other illegalities allegedly committed by Dattu ( which I do not remember at present ) were mentioned in the dossier, which consisted of about 100 pages, many being photocopies of sale deeds and other documents.

   On receiving the dossier I spoke on telephone to Mr. Shanti Bhushan, who sent his son Prashant to my house to collect a copy of the dossier. I had got several copies of the dossier made, and I gave one copy to Prashant when he came to my house, and also discussed the allegations therein.The next day Mr. Shanti Bhushan telephoned me and said the allegations against Dattu in the dossier were very serious. I then told him that in that case the Committee on Judicial Accountability ( COJA ), which consists of senior lawyers of the Supreme Court as well as retired Judges, and of which he and Prashant are members, should hold an enquiry, and at the same time write to the President and Prime Minister not to make Dattu a substantive CJI but only Acting CJI until the enquiry was over.  If the allegations in the dossier were found false then he could be confirmed as CJI. However,  regrettably, nothing was done by Mr. Shanti Bhushan or the others to whom I had sent copies of the dossier.

  I may before concluding add that I have no personal grudge against Dattu, and my only motive in doing what I did was to have upright people on top posts in the judiciary. I only wanted an enquiry into the allegations in the dossier, and I did not say that the allegations were necessarily correct ( though the documentary proof in the dossier does indicate serious illegalities ). But people, including journalists to whom I gave copies of the dossier, were not even willing to investigate. is the media scared ?

  Justice Katju

My fight against corruption

Many people have asked me why I did not speak out against corruption when I was a Judge.

My answer is that there is an unwritten code of conduct for sitting ( not retired ) Judges that they should not go into the public domain. However, though there was this constraint on me when I was a sitting Judge, I was not silent.

 I  repeatedly spoke out against corruption when I was Chief Justice of High Courts and a Supreme Court Judge, e.g.

 (1) I said in my judgment in the Supreme Court in Raja Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, 2011 (see online ) " Something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court ".

 (2) In the chicken fodder scam case i said " The corrupt politicians and bureaucrats should be hanged from the nearest lamp post ". 

(3) When I was Chief Justice of Madras High Court I wrote to the then CJI Lahoti against continuation of a corrupt Additional Judge of the Madras High Court who had the support of a leading politician in Tamilnadu, and for whom 3 CJIs made improper compromises with politicians ( by continuing him ), although there was an adverse IB report against him

 (4) When I was Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court I met the then CJI Justice Lahoti in Delhi and informed him about some corrupt Judges of Allahabad High Court. On this information some were transferred.

 (5) When Judge of the Supreme Court I informed in writing to the then CJI Justice Sabarwal about a corrupt senior Judge of the Delhi High Court. 

(6) I informed Justice Kapadia about a corrupt Chief Justice of a High Court ( who was earlier a Judge in the Madras High Court when I was the Chief Justice there ), who was proposed to be elevated to the Supreme Court

(7) I gave CJI Kapadia the mobile numbers of 3 agents of a corrupt senior Judge of Allahabad High Court Judge through whom he was making deals.

  (8) When I was in the Collegium of the Allahabad High Court, I objected to the then Chief Justice of the High Court to recommending the names of some very senior district judges for elevation to the High Court on the ground that they were known to be corrupt, although they obtained good entries in their service record by obliging their Administrative judges ( portfolio judges )  in some ways.

I can give several other instances where I fought against corruption. But surely I alone could not eliminate all the corruption in India

Indian Judiciary is beyond redemption

The present Chief Justice of India, Justice Dattu, said recently that cases in the Supreme Court would ordinarily be disposed off in 2 years, and criminal trials in 5 years. Almost every CJI makes similar tall claims. The previous CJI made the nonsensical remark that Judges will work 365 days in a year.

There are 33 million cases pending in the law courts of India, and  by one estimate if no new case is instituted it will take 360 years to clear the arrears. While many people talk of clearing the arrears, no one is really serious about it. Arrears,including arrears in the Supreme Court, have kept mounting.

When I was in the Supreme Court I heard a case in 2007 which had been instituted in 1947, that is after 60 years of its institution, and another case 50 years after its institution.

The decision in Rajendra Singh (Dead) thru. Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Prem Mai, which was decided by a Bench of the Supreme Court, of which I was a member, was a case which took 50 years to decide finally, since it was initiated in 1957 in the trial court, and was finally decided on appeal in 2007 by the Supreme Court.

This decision observed :

“ We may quote a passage from the novel 'Bleak House' written in Charles Dickens' inimitable style :-

Jarndyce vs.Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.

Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendry hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality.

There are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.

Is this not descriptive of the situation prevailing in India today? "

 In Allahabad High Court ( my parent High Court ), criminal appeals filed 30 years ago are coming up for hearing today. The lawyer who filed it is usually dead, and the accused in the criminal case is also often dead or untraceable. I am informed that in the Bombay High Court original suits have been pending for 25 years or more. The situation is like that in the case Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce  depicted at the beginning of Charles Dickens' novel ' Bleak House '.

 I doubt whether the lawyer community seriously wants any reform, and as for Supreme Court Judges they mostly have a term of only a few years to seriously attempt it ( despite the talk of almost every CJI ).

 Let me tell the Indian public the truth. The Indian judiciary, like other state institutions in India, is beyond redemption. I was in the system for 40 years, 20 years as a lawyer, and 20 years as a Judge,  ( including Chief Justice of 3 High Courts, Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, and permanent Chief Justice of Madras and Delhi High Courts, and finally Judge of the Supreme Court ). So I should know what i am talking about.\

 Dattu is talking through his hat.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/nearly-three-crore-cases-pending-cji-says-trial-to-end-within-5-years/

' Divine' Judges

Addressing the Chief Justices Conference in Delhi recently, the Prime Minister said that Judges are considered divine, and next only to God.

 I wish his words were true, but the fact is that there is massive corruption in the judiciary. How can a corrupt person be regarded as divine ?

When I started law practice in the Allahabad High Court in 1971 there was no corrupt Judge in the High Court, or perhaps in any High Court in India ( though corruption had started in the lower judiciary ). There were no doubt Judges who were courteous and those who were nasty, intelligent Judges and dull Judges, etc but no corrupt Judge in the High Courts..

 In 1994 when Justice Venkatchaliah was Chief Justice of India there was transfer of a large number of High Court Judges in India on allegations of corruption, and such transfers have continued since then, even upto very recent times.

 In the year 2001 or so Chief Justice of India Bharucha said that upto 20% High Court Judges had become corrupt. My guess is that the figure today may be between 40-50%.( of course there are upright Judges too ).

 In the year 2010 a bench of myself and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in Raja Khan vs. U.P.Sunni Central Waqf Board ( see online ) came down very heavily on some Judges of the Allahabad High Court by observing " Something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court ".

  Mr. Shanti Bhushan, a very senior advocate of the Supreme Court, and former Union Law Minister, filed a list in writing before the Supreme Court a few years back mentioning the names of 8 of the previous 16 Chief Justices of India who were corrupt. Since then probably more names could be added to that list

The Collapse of the System

In my speech at Berkeley, California on 19.3.2015 ( see  ' Justice Katju Berkeley )  I had said that the next 15-20 years in India are going to be very turbulent, and will only end when a just social order emerges.

 Today the truth is that the system of government created by the Indian Constitution on 26th January, 1950 has collapsed. All the state institutions set up by the Constitution have become hollow. Our politicians, a large proportion of whom have criminal backgrounds, are a bunch of rogues and rascals who have no genuine love for the country, and have looted it. Most of them should have been hanged from the nearest lamp post long ago, as indeed I observed orally in the Supreme Court once.

 The Indian judiciary, which often takes decades to finally dispose off a case has largely become a caricature and a mockery. What kind of a judiciary is it which takes so long to decide a case ? Also, a large section of it has become corrupt. No wonder people have started resorting to illegal methods by hiring goondas to evict tenants, realize debts, etc.

  The bureaucracy in India has largely become corrupt, with the result that even schemes which appeared good on paper ( like the MNREGA ) have become sources of corruption in reality.

 The Aam Admi Party came forward presenting an alternative to the prevalent politics with its slogans of transparency, accountability, and inner party democracy. All those slogans have turned out to be hollow. The truth is that the moment a group of people form a political party and enter into electoral politics in India they become corrupt, because a huge amount of money is required to run an organization, fund the elections, etc and lumpen elements ( goondas ) are required to maintain control over dissidents and other opponents ( like Hitler's S.S.).

 The truth is that the Constitution of India, and the system and state organs it created have exhausted themselves. What is the alternative for the Indian people now ? I do not know. The people of India have to use their own creativity and find out the solution. Whatever that solution may be, this can be said for certain : there will be a prolonged period of turmoil and turbulence in India, and this will not end till a just social order is created in which the Indian masses have decent lives.

Corruption in Judiciary

There was a senior District Judge in U.P. who had a very great reputation about his integrity. An Allahabad High Court Judge, who was a friend of mine, and the Administrative (Portfolio) Judge of that District Judge,had given him an adverse entry. I spoke to that High Court Judge ( myself being a Judge of the High Court at that time ), and said that the District Judge was regarded by everyone as a man of very high integrity, and the adverse entry would preclude his chance of becoming a High Court Judge. My friend admitted that he had made a mistake in awarding the adverse entry. I then said that since he admitted making a mistake, he should rectify the mistake, which he thereupon did by expunging the adverse entry. The District Judge then became a High Court Judge.

When I became the Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in August 2004, that District Judge who had become a High Court Judge because of me, had only a few months to retire. He was at that time hearing bail matters, and I received several complaints that he was taking money in deciding bail matters.

 I called him one day to my chamber and said that he had had a great reputation for his integrity, and that is why I had helped him becoming a High Court Judge, but he was letting me down. I told him that several complaints were coming to me about him. When all his life he had maintained high standards of honesty, why was he destroying his reputation at the fag end of his career ?

He was silent on hearing me. I removed him from the bail jurisdiction and posted him in a bench with a senior Judge of high integrity, so that he could not do any more wrong.

There have been some( though very few ) High Court Judges whom I got recommended for Judgeship, who later turned out to be corrupt. I admitted later that I was responsible for their elevation, and so could be blamed for that, but I never knew at the time when I got them recommended that they would turn out to be corrupt. As lawyers they had a good reputation, and that is why i got them recommended. How could I predict that they would let me down ?