Address judges’ appointment issue at the earliest: Parl panel

Though the Bill it scrutinised does not refer to appointment of judges,“the Committee unequivocally feels that the present Bill deals only partially with the problem and the main systematic lacunae remain unaddressed”.

Committee Chairman Abhishek Manu Singhvi said while he was neither speaking in favour or against National Judicial Commission — one of the alternatives being suggested is to replace collegium system — the issue of judges’ appointment needs to be addressed comprehensively,though separately,“at the earliest”.

“The Committee is of the view that the government has to move beyond an incremental approach and give urgent and due thought to a holistic legislation encompassing the appointment process… to ensure judicial accountability for improved administration of justice,” the report said.

The government had informed Lok Sabha on Monday that it has not yet finalised any proposal to replace the collegium system in which judges appoint judges.

The Bill,table in Lok Sabha last year,seeks to make judges accountable and create a set of standards for members of the higher judiciary.

Among the other recommendations of the Committee are making “in camera” the initial investigations made by a scrutiny panel on a complaint against a Supreme Court or High Court judge.

The report said such an arrangement was necessary to ensure that the judge in question does not face “unwarranted defamation” in the initial stage of investigation.

The Committee also recommended accountability of media in relation to “divulging of the information while complaints are under investigation”.

“A judge may find his name splashed across media though at a later stage the complaint could be found as baseless,” Singhvi said while dismissing suggestions that it was a gag order on press.

The Committee has recommended that a clause in the Bill should be expanded by specifically mentioning that judges should “restrain” themselves from making “unwarranted” comments against other Constitutional or statutory bodies or institutions or persons in open court while hearing cases.

Singhvi,in response to questions,said while judges were free to make observations as part of their judgements,the recommendation suggests that they should avoid making comments which are “non judgemental” and not part of their orders. He said it was “not in contradiction to the independence of judiciary”.

The panel has also suggested inclusion of two MPs — one each from the two Houses — to become part of the proposed National Judicial Oversight Committee authorised to initiate probe into corruption allegations against senior judges.

The panel also wants inclusion of non-judicial members in the scrutiny committees to be set up to look into complaints against judges and forwarding the same to the Oversight Committee on basis of merit.

The Scrutiny Committee will be in place in the Supreme Court and in each of the 21 High Courts and would submit reports within three months to the Oversight Committee.