In the other group of cases, allegations of grave impropriety have been made against some judges of the superior judiciary. In Punjab, they are being initially considered in an informal manner by a committee of judges appointed by the chief justice of India and, in the other (in Uttar Pradesh), they are left to be probed by the CBI. In my own humble view if there is to be an informal probe prior to the heavy-artillery of “removal” being called into play, it must be by someone like a judicial ombudsman appointed by Parliament by law — which would protect the very vast number of decent and honourable judges who continue to administer justice in the superior judiciary without fear or favour. Should they be exposed to police complaints, police investigations and the like by disgruntled litigants? There is always one unhappy litigant in every case! In my humble opinion our upright and honourable judges should not be subjected to this harassment. Hence the crying need for a judicial ombudsman.

In the present case, until the “CBI probe” and its report to the Supreme Court, the judges under a cloud continue to sit as judges in the superior judiciary dispensing justice. Public confidence in the superior judiciary, which has always been very high, must continue to be maintained.

I would respectfully submit that it can and should be maintained by time-honoured and well-tested methods. Time-honoured and judicially recognised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Judge J.P. Mitter, when his age of superannuation was in dispute, the Supreme Court had said (in 1965): “If a dispute arises about the age of a judge, any prudent and wise chief justice would naturally think of avoiding unnecessary complications by refusing to assign any work to the sitting judge...”

... contd.