This ad will auto close in 10 seconds

Govt drops introduction of bill on Judges’ assets

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.

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

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

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

Bureau Report

From Zee News

0 Comment - Join the Discussions


photo gallery



Nitish was last leader in Oppn who could have posed a challenge to BJP, PM Modi

DNA Edit | Flood, Apathy, Fury: ‘Disaster Management’ just a term?

Understaffed, overburdened ASI has a lot on its platter

Nitish Kumar back in NDA: Opposition can kiss their 2019 dreams goodbye

DNA Edit: BJP to steer Bihar now