Govt drops introduction of bill on Judges’ assets
Zeenews
       English        
 Follow Me on Pinterest Google Plus Ditto RSS Mail to us Mail to us
Friday, May 24, 2013 
Search
Nation

Govt drops introduction of bill on Judges’ assets

Last Updated: Tuesday, August 04, 2009, 00:23     A- A A+
Comments 4
Govt drops introduction of bill on Judges’ assets New Delhi: Government was on Monday forced in the Rajya Sabha to drop introduction of a Bill that would have protected the assets of judges from being made public in the teeth of severe objections from the Opposition and reservations from a Congress member.

Members of BJP and CPI(M) strongly objected to introduction of the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) bill, 2009 when Law Minister Veerappa Moily got up in the house, calling it violation of Constitution and promoting a "class of citizens".

They were particularly severe on Clause 6 of the measure which in the words of noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani "a conspiracy of corruption".

Congress member Jayanti Natarajan joined them saying the bill may violate the Right to Information law and suggested it may be referred to a standing committee so that the Opposition objections could be considered.

The clause states that declaration made by a judge to the competent authority shall not not be made public or disclosed and shall not not be called for or put into question by any citizen, court or authority.

Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley, another noted lawyer, there cannot be two Art 19 (1)(a) (of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression)--one for the entire body of persons desirous of contesting elections and holding public office and the other already in public office.

Jaitley said "people have the right to know what their (those contesting elections) assets are but those already in public offices and higher judicial institutions, people have no right to know what their assets are.

"Now this dual interpretation of Art 19 (1)(a) cannot be sustained. Clause 6 should be reconsidered."

CPI(M) member Brinda Karat strongly felt that the bill violated the basic feature of the Constitution--that of equality before law.

"This bill promotes a class of citizens namely judges who are put above that basic feature of the Constitution. Therefore, clause 6 of the Constitution is ultra vires of the Constitution and I would request the government withdraw the bill at this stage," she said.

Jethmalani said the bill amounted to saying the judges need not not disclose their assets but other people's assets should be disclosed.

"But not ours. This privileged position, which judges are seeking from the executive, makes them totally subservient to the executive and demolishes the whole vision of our founding fathers that independence of judiciary is a must. You are destroying the independence of judiciary. This will be a conspiracy in corruption," he said.

CPI(M) member Sitaram Yechury felt that the opinion of the House should be taken before introduction of the bill. The minister should not go into the merits of the bill at the stage of introduction.

Sensing the mood, Moily beat a hasty retreat saying the government would bring the Bill after evolving a consensus.

In the 250-member House with an effective strength of 234, the Congress-led UPA does not have a majority on its own and may have to depend on outside allies like SP and RJD to get the measure passed.

Earlier, Moily said judges, unlike other classes of people, the civil servants or political executives, faced a limitation when it came to replying to allegations made against them.

"Sometimes petitions may be used as an instrument intimidate and hold them to ransom. These are all things which can be debated," he said.

Disagreeing with members' contention that the bill was violative of Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, Moily said "it is after 60 years we are making a certain attempt" to bring accountability in the judiciary.

Opposition to a bill at the introduction stage is a rare occurrence that prompted Deputy Chairman K Rehman Khan to cite an earlier ruling and to seek the opinion of the House.

The Bill proposes that the Judges of the Supreme Court will furnish details of their assets and liabilities to the Chief Justice of India, while High Court Judges will sumbit the information to their respective Chief Justices.

Moily dismissed suggestions that the bill was circulated among the judiciary before being brought to the house. At present, there is only an internal mechanism created by Supreme Court on the declaration of assets by judges.

"There is no law (to deal with the issue)," he said adding "we found a lot of corruption in many places in judiciary. We need to deal with that".

Observing that government can hardly do anything with regard to corruption cases in judiciary, Moily said in 60 years not not a single case of impeachment has been successfully concluded in either House of Parliament.

He also referred to the case of a Calcutta High Court against whom the Rajya Sabha Chairman has constituted a committee on a petition for impeachment.

"The government is a mute spectator," the Minister said to which BJP member Ravi Shankar Prasad said "do something".

He said the government proposes to bring a comprehensive judges enquiry bill that will deal with the issue of corruption on a much wider scale.

"We are working on a roadmap on judicial reforms," he said, adding national consultation would be held later this month.

D Raja (CPI) said the proposed legislation cannot be accepted and nobody was above the law.

Bureau Report

For Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest

First Published: Tuesday, August 04, 2009, 00:23

Post your Comments

Name:
Place :
Email :
Comments :
 

Comments

Shailesh Reddy - Hyderabad
Strange, Indians behave strangely. A week after the Continental Airlines episode was reported there was a small write up on Kalam walking for about 15 minutes to find his car, after attending a function at a medical college at Kochi. If CA does we all get agitated and if we do it we ignore it. When CA can frisk Dr Kalam for `security reasons` and we term it as an insult. Is it not an insult to the former President that he is made to walk in search of his car. Put an end to `double standards`. It is not the CA that should apologise, it is the bureaucrats (protocol) who should apologise Dr Kalam for it is their responsibility to share the travel plans of Dr Kalam and provide him with `frisk` free travel.
Reply



Post your Comments

X
Name
Place :
Email :
Comments :
 
H.K.Mohanty - Cuttack
Strange country, strange attitude.Ceaser`s wife should be above suspision.But in our country ,trying to do that may land you in jail ! After all the exercise,we should not be surprised if any clause/or the whole ACT is declared ULTRA-VIRES.
Reply



Post your Comments

X
Name
Place :
Email :
Comments :
 
Nana Gupta - New Delhi
Ministers will hide judicial corruption and the judiciary will be soft on ministers, a quid pro quo. Where are transparency, integrity, accountability, etc? Sorry, such silly things are for the common man and the powerful are above them! Jai Ho, Jai Gandhi, Jai Nehru! The corrupt set up created by them is now bearing fruit.


Reply



Post your Comments

X
Name
Place :
Email :
Comments :
 
divakarssathya - Hyderabad
And India’s editorial class will not report the story! Welcome to:Divakar’s Sathyagraha News and views from Divakar S Natarajan’s, “no excuses”, ultra peaceful, non partisan, individual sathyagraha against corruption and for the idea of the rule of law in India. Now in its 18th year.
Reply



Post your Comments

X
Name
Place :
Email :
Comments :
 

View all Comments   

Most liked Comments

Top News



latest