Supreme power of "Great India"

The four main pillars of Indian democracy are legislative, judiciary, media and citizens. As of now all the four pillars are rotten, which paves the way for anarchy in future. In the above four, judiciary has extreme powers while comparing to others three. Because other three are answerable to judiciary, but judiciary is not.

The Supreme Court of India:

The Supreme Court of India is known for using its constitutional mandate and authority to initiate actions in the public interest. The court in the past has even taken note of newspaper reports to initiate actions against suspected breach of law and misuse of office by public servants. This earnestness and enthusiasm have not been reflected in the Indian courts' approach in scrutinizing the activities of the courts and their judges, however. On the contrary, the Indian courts have been very parochial in facing criticism.

Previously INDIAN JUDICIARY was the angel who provides justice to the commoners. Now, the tentacles of corruption have engulfed the Indian judiciary too. There are charges against various judges ranging from bribery, theft; practice of untouchability, false affidavit to murder .One judge has been accused of literally running an AUCTION HOUSE OF JUDICIAL ORDERS in association with the underworld. In that place everything from BAIL; STAY TO ACQUITTAL FROM CASE was available for a price of course.

Some of the pioneering efforts of media have brought these scandals light .the judiciary has hidden those scandals in a hush hush manner from the public eye. Recently it was reported in “deccan herald “that a district judge of u.p. was acting as a pimp since years & supplying mod girls to politicians. In another report it was stated that a district judge of tamilnadu demanded sexual favors from a woman to give favorable judgment in a case when she refused to do his bidding he allegedly tried to rape her. Quite recently, there was a news report about immoral acts of certain high ranking judges in a resort near Mysore. It was indirectly implied that certain women advocates who were selected as judges were returning the favors immorally to the senior judges (who were in the selection committee).

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India was found locked in a battle with the legislature regarding the issue of transparency of the judiciary. The court that once said the newly implemented right to information law was a necessity in India to bring light into the dark corners of administration, is becoming increasingly wary about the same principles applied to the courts. This attitude is an extension of the Supreme Court's earlier “allergy” toward bringing transparency into the Indian judiciary. In 2007 the court forced Vijay Shekhar – a journalist with a television news channel who exposed the caucus of a corrupt magistrate, his court staff and some lawyers in Gujarat state in a "warrants for cash" scam – to apologize to the court or face a term in jail for contempt of court. The court staff and lawyers were caught on camera negotiating and accepting bribes for the magistrate for issuing arrest warrants.

The Supreme Court took up the matter and directed the Gujarat High Court to initiate an internal enquiry against the concerned judicial officer and his staff. The Gujarat High Court absolved the judge, however, without examining the complainants. Thereafter, the Supreme Court of India condemned the journalist who had carried out this operation and threatened to send him to jail for contempt unless he apologized. The conviction and sentencing of journalists in 2007 for publishing information about the conduct of Justice Sabharwal, a Supreme Court judge, had brought to the fore the issue of judicial accountability. But the issue soon died a natural death, since no one wanted to get into trouble with the court.

The Indian judiciary is one of the most powerful in the world. Its conduct has a direct impact upon the life of ordinary people. A state institution of such high powers must be transparent and accountable for its actions. The courts in India have however consistently avoided calls for accountability despite many serious allegations of misconduct and misdemeanor. At one time Justice S. P. Bharucha, the former chief justice of India, admitted that about 20 percent of the higher judiciary was corrupt. According to Justice Michael Saldahna of the Karnataka High Court, it is 33 percent. Despite such admissions, no enquiry has ever been initiated against any judge in the past 15 years.

Under the Constitution of India, the only way to remove a judge from the High Court or the Supreme Court is by way of impeachment. This constitutional provision has failed miserably. Its ineffectiveness was clearly demonstrated in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami. At the same time, despite verbal homilies, the courts and judges have been the most reluctant to evolve even a self-monitoring mechanism for accountability. Such a situation reflects enormous arrogance and abuse of power. This is reflected in the procedures for appointing judges to the higher judiciary as well. Even though appointments are made by the president of India, the selection is made by the collegiums of judges. The selection process is nontransparent and all attempts to make the process transparent have been resisted by the judiciary.

Demanding judicial accountability has almost always caused the initiation of contempt proceedings, thereby stifling free discussion on the issues that plague the judiciary. Unwarranted use of contempt of court proceedings in fact diminishes the public perception about the judiciary's openness and transparency.

The term democracy implies the notion that the people are supreme. All state institutions, whether it is the judiciary, legislature or the executive, are merely servants of the people. The basic principle behind the contempt of court proceedings is that the court must use this authority only in circumstances where otherwise the functioning of the court would be impossible or obstructed.

In India under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the term “contempt” is not defined. Therefore if any person makes adverse comments against the court or a judge, the power to punish for "scandalizing the court” is frequently invoked. As per the law, court can even file charges against me for this post. Thank god, our judges are not good at internet.

This approach is considered obscure in most established jurisdictions. The contempt of court action must not be an attempt to protect the dignity of the court, but to promote the administration of justice. The dignity of the court is promoted by the court being humble enough to face criticism, whereas promotion of justice is to be carried out by removing all hindrances to the delivery of justice. By the unrestrained use of contempt of court actions the courts in India are in fact derogating from their duty to safeguard the Constitution of the country, which also guarantees freedom of speech and expression in Article 19 (1).

The honor of the judges and the judiciary – the state institution through which the judges are supposed to serve the people – is promoted and protected by the openness of the judges and the judiciary to criticism. Intolerance to scrutiny and lack of openness equates the judges and the judiciary with a dictatorship. At this pace the Indian judiciary, once known for its eloquence and its contribution to the advancement of free thought and expression, will soon be reduced to an egotistical institution. Such a judiciary is definitely not what modern India aspires to. India today requires a transparent, accountable and sensitive judiciary.

The imperatives for the judiciary in India are obvious. It has a duty to protect, promote and fulfill the Constitutional guarantees. The judiciary must be open and transparent with a clear conscience that it is not beyond criticism. For this, it must be accountable to the people, which it is bound to serve. The judiciary in India is the last hope of a fragmented society. When it fails to respect its responsibilities, it will bring insurmountable peril to the country and its people.

India’s subordinate courts have a backlog of over 22 million cases while the 21 high courts and the Supreme Court have 3.5 million and 32,000 pending cases (2006). In subordinate courts, over 15 million cases are filed and an equal number disposed of annually by about 14,000 judges! Every year a million or more cases are added to the arrears. At the current speed, the lower courts may take 124 years for clearing the backlog. There were only 13 judges for every million people.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, only 31 per cent criminal trials are completed in less than a year. Some take even more than 10 years. According to its study, Crime in India 2002, nearly 220,000 cases took more than 3 years to reach court, and about 25,600 exhausted 10 years before they were completed. The term of the Liberhan Commission, formed 14 years ago to probe the demolition of the Babar mosque in Ayodhya and originally given a mandate of three months, has been extended again!

Because of this Most of the cases are lossing their importance.When the case comes for hearing he might have forget the incident itself, which helps the oponent lawyer to break the points.

Finally judiciary made one point clear to ordinary peoples, i.e don’t come to me for justice, I will provide a crap that to after a long time. So don’t indulge in any activates which may need judiciary assistance. Which it term helps the rouges to attain their task, with out any issues. So after the breaking point we find only rouges not citizens.

Scandals against judges:

1949: Mr. Justice Sinha only Judge impeached; courtesy Good Judges & Constitution Framers: Our Fore-Fathers represented by Constituent Assembly of India framers of Constitution of India then in 1949 (year before Constitution came into existence) impeached Mr. Justice Sinha; finding him "guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. Such similar acts behaviors by whom-so-ever including Judges are since 1971 is covered as an act of Criminal Contempt of Court [041.05]. Not a single Judge is either Impeached or hauled-up for Contempt till 1991.

Peoples' Inner Hope Courts to maintain their Majesty & Dignity will prosecute 1000 Judges in context, who have tarnished & undermined the Fair image of Judiciary. Let Judges relish Jail for months if not years, to asses personally the conveniences-N-comforts provided even to innocent citizens or persons who were not having Rs. 100 to give as Bail. Then they will be in better position to Transform Jails into Reformation Centers. Jailing corrupt Judges by Judges, we hope will instill confidence of people in Courts & law. Who-is-who of India then only will scare
to get into any scam or Criminals will think of becoming Legislators.

1979 : Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami ; Chief Justice of India permitted Central Bureau of India to file case of Dis-proportionate of Income / wealth against Chief Justice Madras High Court Mr. K. Veeraswami ( father-in-law of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ). 30 years elapsed. Sheltered by Courts' easy-go-tactic. [049.04] [059.05]

1991-93: Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami (son-in-law of Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami [049.04]): SAWANT COMMITTEE REPORT had held he is guilty of several charges. Supreme Court of India also upheld guilty of 3-4 charges & recommended to Parliament for further action. Parliamentarians failed in their Duty to Impeach the Sitting Judge of Supreme Court Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami; not rising to the Heights of Eminent Constitution makers; but chose to have unholy alliance with Corruption in Judiciary vis-à-vis Legislature & Government.[008.00 ].

Supreme Court which upheld Charges of Misbehavior also , we opine , failed to prosecute him under Contempt of Court Act & relevant Laws . It also failed “To Do Complete Justice" by invoking Article142. Criminal Judge was allowed to go scot-free; both by Parliament & Supreme Court!

Good precedent for other Judges? If so what kind of message to we-innocent-Citizens? For almost complete proceedings in SC & Parliament: [008.00 ] 1995 A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the Bombay High Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had received Rs.70 lakhs as book advance from a publishing firm known to have links with the underworld.

1996 AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement

1994 to 1997: A.M. AHMADI: When he was Chief Justice of India (October 1994-March 1997), his daughter, a lawyer in the Delhi High Court, caused eyebrows to be raised for getting "special" treatment from certain judges. When some members of the bar sought a resolution banning lawyer relatives of judges from staying in the same house, the CJI got members to defeat the motion.

2000 A.S. ANAND: As Chief Justice of India. (a) He was accused of using his position to get the subordinate judiciary to rule in favor of his wife and mother-in-law in a suit that had been barred by limitation for two decades. Also read Ram Jethmalani's “BIG EGOS, small men ". (b) Supreme Court, while he was CJI, directed a CBI probe after a dispute arose over his age in 2000. The investigation report was not made public. This arose due to scan copy published in Ram Jethmalani's “BIG EGOS, small men ".

2002: SEX FOR ACQUITTAL In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favors for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to "fix" a case in her favor. Justice Mr. Arun Madan. Case of Lady Sunita Malviya.
STATUS: A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore. Judge Resigned

CASH-FOR-JOB: Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the commission. Judges are M.L. Singh, Mehtab Sing Gill & Amarbir Singh
STATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him.

2002-03: 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal ( alleged ) : On Sunday, November 3, 2002, three judges of the Karnataka High Court, along with two women advocates, allegedly got involved in a brawl with a woman guest at a resort. The police arrived but reportedly didn't take action. Judges are N.S. Veerabhadraiah, V. Gopalagowda & A.Chandrashekaraiah .
STATUS: The three-judge inquiry committee appointed by the CJI filed its report. Gave a clean chit.

March 2003 - Delhi High Court Judge resigns: Suspected of collusion with Property Developers. Raids by CBI on corrupt higher officials in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), found Draft Judgment-N-Court Records

Honorables Sir's, First of all try to solve the cases against you with transperency.Then you can provide justice to the peoples.