World Video | Defence | Foreign Affairs | Natural Events | Trade | NZ in World News | NZ National News Video | NZ Regional News | Search

 


INDIA: Is judicial morale that low?

INDIA: Is judicial morale that low?


AHRC-STM-075-2014.jpgThe decision of a high court judge in Kerala to stop hearing a case, following the visit of a lawyer who allegedly trying to influence him, is another symptom of low morale within the judiciary as well as the Bar. The judge in question, Justice C. T. Ravikumar, was hearing a series of litigations relating to the issuance of bar licences in the state.

Justice Ravikumar decided not to pronounce the judgement he had prepared, after a lawyer on the rolls at the High Court Bar, Mr. Thawamani, visited the judge and allegedly tried to influence the judge. The lawyer has denied the charges, but has admitted visiting the judge, against which the Bar Council of Kerala has initiated a suo motu inquiry.

While the judge's act appears honourable and reaffirms his professional integrity, a few disturbing questions arise, particularly since this is not an isolated incident. In at least four occasions in the past 12 months, trial as well as appellate court judges in India have refused to hear cases any further, due to either lawyers or parties to the litigation having allegedly tried to influence proceedings. In none of these previous occasions has there been an inquiry, the results of which have been made public.

What action has the Indian judiciary taken to prevent such incidents from re-occurring? This question is fundamental; a judge alleging that she/he has been approached inappropriately by a person interested in case proceedings, is a serious event, which, if allowed into practice, has the potential to reduce public confidence in the judiciary further.

In India, as in many other jurisdictions, there are no set laws and rules that bind judges from excusing themselves from hearing a case. Given this fact, the practice of recusal could be used by a judge or a person interested in the lis to protract proceedings. Can the judiciary guarantee that such a possibility has been ruled out?

Next, what is this environment that prevails wherein a Bar members can dare visit a judge and discuss matters being adjudicated by the same judge? What action is possible through the Bar Council to end such alleged professional misconduct to ensure Mr. Thawamani's visit to Justice Ravikumar is the last such incident? The Advocates Act, 1961, or the Bar Council of India Rules, promulgated in 1975, do not specify what amounts to misconduct by a lawyer. Legal lacuna must be addressed.

There are universally accepted guiding principles on the subject, like the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, 1985, and the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 1990. Both these documents have benefitted immensely from expertise and insights provided by at least two prominent jurists from India, Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Mr. Fali S. Nariman.

Based on these principles and recognising the importance of the role played by judges and lawyers in preserving the rule of law, the UN has also created a special procedure mandate on the subject, having appointed a Special Rapporteur to deal with the subject of independence of judges and lawyers. A judge, a lawyer, or the institution these professionals represent, defaulting in mandate will have serious adverse consequences on the rule of law regime in the jurisdiction they represent, thereby contributing to the diminishing of the principles of democracy in that country.

A lawyer trying to unduly influence a judge is indeed professional misconduct, against which the Bar Council has a responsibility to act. Devoid of the status of being a member of the Bar, the person involved in the present case is an individual. And, henceforth, any alleged act of interference by this person, if proven, constitutes a crime, one of interference with due process.

Viewed from such a position, trying to unduly influence a judge must be treated as a crime that needs to be investigated by the police, based on a complaint by the judge concerned or an officer of the court. Any failure to make such a complaint, implies preferential treatment to lawyers. This would negate the fundamental principle of equality before the law, which the judiciary, above all, is bound to protect.

In this case, and in all such incidents in the past, no complaint of a crime has been reported registered against any suspect exercising the alleged malice in India.

Hence, one may question the futility of the judge's recusal, since, apart from the decision getting protracted, nothing meaningful can arise from such an action. A judge recusing himself or herself from hearing a case serves no purpose, unless, the judge declares, that as an adjudicating officer, he or she has a conflict of interest in the lis.

Judges entertain a low level of confidence about public perception of their professional independence. This is a concern that the judiciary and the Bar should compete to address. Their failure to remedy this will keep pushing the Indian judiciary deeper into an abyss of mistrust and demoralisation, from were there can be no easy escape.

ends

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
World Headlines

 

UK Labour Statement: The Shooting Of MP Jo Cox

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party said: “The whole of the Labour Party and Labour family - and indeed the whole country - will be in shock at the horrific murder of Jo Cox today. Jo had a lifelong record of public service and a deep commitment to humanity." More>>

ALSO:

Wellington.Scoop: Rainbow Colours On MFC In Sympathy For Florida Killings
Wellington’s Michael Fowler Centre will be lit in colours of the rainbow Monday as a gesture of support for the LGBTI victims of the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, Florida. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On How Obama’s Supreme Court Choice Says Everything (Bad) About His Presidency

Nothing has epitomised the presidency of Barack Obama quite like his Supreme Court nominees. Time and again, Republican presidents will blithely nominate right wing ideological extremists (Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas) who only sometimes misfire and turn out to be liberals in disguise (David Souter). Yet Obama has consistently skipped over the judicially qualified liberals and gone for a succession of centrists... More>>

ALSO:

Turkey: UN Secretary-General On The Terrorist Bombing In Ankara

The Secretary-General condemns the terrorist attack in Ankara earlier today. According to the latest reports, the explosion in the Kizilay district killed and wounded dozens of people. More>>

ALSO:

Five Years On: Fukushima And New Zealand

Science Media Centre: It was the worst nuclear event since Chernobyl. In the wake of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, a crippled Japanese nuclear powerplant went into meltdown, and the world watched as emergency workers scrambled to shut down and contain the reactors. More>>

ALSO:

UNICEF: 1 In 3 Syrian Children Has Grown Up Knowing Only Crisis

An estimated 3.7 million Syrian children – 1 in 3 of all Syrian children - have been born since the conflict began five years ago, their lives shaped by violence, fear and displacement, according to a UNICEF report. This figure includes more than 151,000 children born as refugees since 2011. More>>

ALSO:

Franklin Lamb: Syria’s Truce Bodes Well For Salvaging Our Cultural Heritage

The tentative cessation of hostilities in Syria, which came into effect on 2/28/2016, brokered by Washington and Moscow, is only in its second week... It is well documented that there have been daily incidents of artillery shelling, airstrikes and clashes. Yet, for the nearly 12 million displaced civilians, half of Syria’s population, it’s a much welcomed respite. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
World
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news