New Delhi: A parliamentary panel on Tuesday held an animated discussion on the violation of the code of conduct for the judges of the higher judiciary, focusing on concerns about some judges, who misuse their position to secure post -retirement jobs. The MPs who attended the meeting told Theprint that the need for the cooling period after judges could carry the subsequent assignments after retirement, one of the suggestions made in the meeting.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on personnel, public grievances, laws and justice headed by BJP MP Brij Lal also saw the MPs how the Supreme Court’s relatives have continued to practice in the same court in a clear violation of 1997. Restore of values of judicial lifePrimary Code of Ethics that controls judicial behavior.
MPs including one of the ruling BJP also questioned why an FIR has not been filed in Nyaya Yashwant. The Verma case has yet been, and Chief Justice O, F India has not taken any action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, “whose actions violated the code of conduct”, an opposition MP who attended the meeting, said Daprin said.
Show full article
In March, a large cash of burnt currency notes was found in the storeroom of Justice Verma’s official residence, while Justice Yadav has strongly criticized for making controversial comments about Muslims at the VHP event in December last year.
Many MPs also talked about how some judges have political aspirations. The MPs misused some judges, raising the issue of resignation and joining with the leaders of the opposition party, passing an order against the leaders of the opposition party, “an opposition MP said,” The members also said that “how some judges have political ideology, which reflects in their order … they go and participate in political meetings.” ,
According to a source, it was in the context that an opposition MP suggested that the bureaucracy, like the bureaucracy, should have a 5-year cooling-off period for judges, before they could take post-retirement jobs.
The source said, “Another MP also suggested that to prevent such misuse of power, the retirement age of judges should be increased, and they should be given good pension so that they do not take assignments after retirement.”
In its report presented in the Rajya Sabha on 7 February 2024, the Parliamentary Committee said that the retirement age of the judges should be raised and “can be re -evaluated to ensure their untouchability to publicly fund the practice of retirement assignments for Supreme Court and High Court judges.”
The report said, “The committee suggests that the entire surge of issues related to such appointments of retired judges can be re -studied and re -studied by the Ministry.”
Also read: The Summer Vacation Condrum: How SC, Advocates ‘Partial Court Working Days’
‘Kith and Kin should not be allowed to practice in the same court’
Sources said how many MPs also practiced relatives of judges in the same court and live in the same house in violation of the code of conduct in the same house.
“MPs stated that the 1997 guidelines clearly mention that Kith and who should not practice in the same court. If this happens, either the judge should be transferred or who should stop practicing,” said the sources.
The MPs tried to find out against judges, against the two ruling BJP and opposition, justice secretary Raj Kumar Goel, the number of complaints pending in the Supreme Court and violation of the Code of Conduct against Judges for High Courts in the states.
The Secretary of Justice, who was called for the meeting, sought time to respond to the issues raised by the MPs.
Sources said that in his presentation before the members of the parliamentary panel, Goyal said that every time the department brings a bill, it does not happen. One of the sources of sources said, “He gave the example of NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission Act) and how it was killed.”
In 2015, the Supreme Court killed the NJAC, which would have changed the collegium system, where the most seated judges of the Apex Court recommend appointing judges in the higher judiciary.
The source said that the MPs also demanded Goyal to know how many judges have uploaded their assets, as mandatory by the code of conduct.
“For this, the Justice Secretary replied that he would have to investigate,” the source said.
It is not mandatory for judges to have their assets in public domains. An entire bench of the Supreme Court decided to keep the assets of judges on the Apex Court website in 2007, but on voluntary basis.
The opposition MP earlier said that the members of the parliamentary panel also raised the issue of how some judges abuse advocates and lawyers in the open court and demand to know if it could be brought under the purview of the code of conduct.
The opposition MP said, “He (MPs) also asked how to ban the judges from making unnecessary and unfair political comments in the court that are not related to the case they are handling,” said the opposition MP.
(Edited by Zininia Ru Chaudhary)
Also read: The city shore a decade after the fire, some closed for the families of the victims as HC