L E T T E R S    T O    T H E    E D I T O R

NJC best for selection of judges

V ESHWAR ANAND’s article, “Selecting judges: Independence of judiciary must be protected” (Oct 27)” was timely. The NDA government introduced the Constitution (98th Amendment) Bill, 2003, providing for a National Judicial Commission (NJC) for recommending appointments to higher judiciary and examining complaints of deviant behaviour against judges. Though the aforesaid mechanism was best suited, the UPA government has not accepted the idea. Instead, it adopted a statutory route by tabling the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, which provided setting up of NJC to deal with complaints and not appointments. Why?

The Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Mr M. Veerappa Moily, in its report, “Ethics in Governance”, has recommended NJC headed by the Vice-President of India with members from the legislature, executive and judiciary to deal with both appointments and complaints against the judges. When all leading countries have put in place such a system, why is India reluctant to do the same?

HEMANT KUMAR, Advocate, Ambala City


I welcome the Centre’s decision to introduce a Bill in Parliament providing for NJC to deal with judicial misconduct. This will help contain corruption in the higher judiciary. However, it would be better if this mechanism is made best use of for selecting the judges too.

When the common man sees justice being hijacked by the rich, he feels disappointed. A former CJI had said that there is 20 per cent corruption in the lower judiciary, but it is the other way round. In the absence of an effective law to deal with the erring judges, corruption in the judiciary has increased of late.

Once the NJC comes into force, the people will be able to complaint against the erring judges. If the amended Bill gives powers to the NJC to remove or retire compulsorily the corrupt judges, it will act as a strong deterrent.

Major NARINDER SINGH JALLO (retd), Mohali


To provide vigour and vitality to the democratic structure, an independent judiciary based on merit and integrity is a must. Its importance and relevance has become greater today because the system of governance is under strain.

An independent judiciary remains the only medium to correct the fault lines created by a lethargic and tardy administration and keep the democratic institutions healthy and workable.

I welcome the Centre’s decision on the NJC. The Chief Justice of India’s questionnaire method to seek details from aspirants for the post of judge is also apt. As a sound and healthy democracy hinges on people’s aspirations, judicial independence needs to be protected at any cost.

Lt-Col CHANAN SINGH DHILLON (retd), Ludhiana


I welcome steps for establishing the NJC and strict scrutiny of names for the post of judge. More measures are needed to overhaul the higher judiciary. The “vacation culture”, a relic of the past, needs to be scrapped. Vacancies in the High Courts and the Supreme Court should be filled up expeditiously.

As suggested by the writer, the concept of Indian Judicial Service on the lines of the Indian Administrative Service should be given a practical shape. The IJS will attract talent and merit to the subordinate courts.

Moreover, live telecast of important cases merits a fair trial. After all, there is a big difference between hearing and watching the court proceedings live on television. Clearly, the need of the hour is a clean judiciary instead of a “corrupt” and “committed” judiciary.

K.J.S. AHLUWALIA, Amritsar


Clause 2 of Article 147 of the Constitution has laid down the foolproof method of the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. It has stood the test of times. However, some shortcomings have crept into it. We should get them eliminated and not scrap the present system of appointment of judges. The constitutional procedure provides enough security to the judges to help them give their judgements independently.

One cannot condone the corrupt practices by some judges. Corrupt, incompetent and inefficient judges should be shunted out. This will act as a strong deterrent. The proposal on Indian Judicial Service merits serious consideration.


Parliament should meet often

Parliament sessions have become very short. This is cause for concern. This year, it met only for 38 days! There is a strong case for enacting legislation to make Parliament meet more often. The members’ conduct in the proceedings should also improve. A lot of time is wasted due to disruption of the proceedings and walkouts. What the NDA is doing now, the Congress was doing the same when it was in the Opposition.

When the no-confidence motion was tabled in July this year, the BJP members did not allow the Prime Minister to reply to the debate. Is it democracy? When will they learn to behave?




HOME PAGE | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Opinions |
| Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi |
| Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |