• PAMELA PHILIPOSE: Of late the credibility of judges has been under some assault. What is your opinion on this and what does it signify for the judiciary and the individuals concerned?

In a democracy, judges, like other holders of public office, are ultimately accountable to the people. The higher the office, the greater the accountability. People have a right to know how people in high offices are functioning. Recent developments involving some members of the higher judiciary are, therefore, deeply perturbing.

• SEEMA CHISHTI: You spoke of a mechanism that is required to settle or look at charges against judges or former judges. What do you propose?

If criminal liability is not involved, I don’t think it is possible to have the same mechanism for all levels. For the subordinate judiciary, the high court has power of control by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Also, I don’t think people other than judges should be involved in case the conduct of members of the judiciary requires scrutiny. The involvement of others, or politicians, will not be appropriate and consistent with the independence of the judiciary.

In the Justice Veeraswamy matter, in which the allegation was of corruption, the majority on the bench upheld the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but I disagreed with the majority and took the view that a fresh law needs to be enacted because there is now a felt need for it. I think if there are specific charges against a judge, a body of judges could sit and decide on the merits. In case there is no basis, then contempt proceedings must be initiated, but if there is a basis for the allegation, and there is justification for proceeding against the judge or former judge, that must follow.

... contd.