New Delhi: A parliamentary panel Tuesday held an animated discussion on violations of code of conduct for judges of higher judiciary, focusing on concerns about some judges misusing their position to secure post-retirement jobs. Lawmakers who attended the meeting told ThePrint that the need for a cooling period before judges can take up post-retirement assignments was among the suggestions made at the meeting.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, headed by BJP MP Brij Lal, also saw lawmakers having a heated discussion on how relatives of judges continue to practice in the same court in blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, the primary code of ethics governing judicial behaviour.
MPs, including one from the ruling BJP also questioned why an FIR has not been filed in the Justice Yashwant Varma case yet, and why the Chief Justice o,f India has not taken any action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, “whose actions constituted a violation of code of conduct”, an opposition MP, who attended the meeting told ThePrint.
A huge cache of burnt currency notes was found in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in March, while Justice Yadav has drawn sharp criticism for making controversial remarks about Muslims at a VHP event in December last year.
Several MPs also spoke about how some judges have political aspirations. “MPs raised the issue of some judges abusing their power, passing orders against opposition party leaders and then resigning and joining political parties,” said an opposition MP, adding that the members also talked about “how some judges have political ideology, which reflects in their order…. They go and attend political meetings as well.”
According to a source, it was in this context that an opposition MP suggested that like in bureaucracy, there should be a cooling-off period of 5 years for judges before they can take up post-retirement jobs.
The source said, “Another MP also suggested that to stop such abuse of power, the retirement age of judges should be increased, and they should be given good pensions so that they do not take up post-retirement assignments.”
In its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha on 7 February, 2024, the Parliamentary committee had stated that it was of the view that the retirement age of judges should be raised and “the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.”
“The committee suggests that the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges may be comprehensively studied again and relooked upon by the Ministry,” it had said in the report.
Also read: The summer vacation conundrum: How SC, advocates view ‘partial court working days’
‘Kith and kin should not be allowed to practice in same court’
Several MPs also vociferously spoke out against how relatives of judges practice in the same court and reside in the same house in blatant violation of code of conduct, sources said.
“MPs said that the 1997 guidelines clearly mentions that kith and kin should not practice in the same court. If it happens, then either the judge should be transferred or the kith and kin should stop practicing,” the sources said.
The MPs, both from the ruling BJP and the opposition, also sought to know from Raj Kumar Goyal, the justice secretary, about the number of complaints pending in the Supreme Court and the High Courts across states against judges for violation of code of conduct.
The justice secretary, who was summoned for the meeting, sought time to respond to the issues raised by the MPs.
Sources said that in his presentation before the parliamentary panel members, Goyal said that every time the department brings a bill, it does not fructify. “He gave the example of NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission Act) and how it was struck down,” one of the sources said.
In 2015, the Supreme Court had struck down NJAC, which would have replaced the Collegium system, where the senior most sitting judges of the apex court recommend judges to be appointed to the higher judiciary.
The source added that MPs also sought to know from Goyal about how many judges have uploaded their assets, as mandated by the code of conduct.
“To this, the justice secretary answered that he will have to check,” the source said.
It is not mandatory for judges to put their assets in the public domain. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court had in 2007 decided to place the assets of judges on the apex court’s website, but on a voluntary basis.
The opposition MP quoted earlier said that parliamentary panel members also raised the issue of how some judges keep on abusing advocates and lawyers in open court and sought to know if it could be brought under the purview of code of conduct.
“They (MPs) also asked how to restrict judges from making unnecessary and unwarranted political comments in the court that are not connected with the case that they are handling,” the opposition MP added.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Decade after City Kinara fire, some closure for victims’ kin as HC makes ‘grossly negligent’ BMC pay