Markandey Katju’s allegations of impropriety in judicial appointments have put the spotlight on corruption in the judiciary, which must be tackled head-on in the larger national interest
While expressing his views on corruption within the judiciary, Mr Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court recently wrote: “There was an additional judge of the Madras High Court, against whom, there were several allegations of corruption. He had been directly appointed as a district judge in Tamil Nadu, and during his career as district judge, there were as many as eight adverse entries against him, recorded by various portfolio judges of the Madras High Court. But, one acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court, by a single stroke of his pen deleted all those adverse entries, and consequently he became an additional judge of the high court. He was, in that post, when I became the Chief Justice of Madras high court in November 2004.”
Mr Katju added that the aforementioned judge, Ashok Kumar, had the solid support of an important political leader of Tamil Nadu. Mr Katju was told this was the case because Kumar had, during his tenure in the district courts, granted bail to that influential political leader. Since Mr Katju was supposedly getting many reports about the corrupt activities of Kumar, he requested the then Chief Justice of India, Mr RC lahoti, to launch an Intelligence Bureau inquiry.
Mr Katju has said that he later learnt what had happened. The Supreme Court collegium recommended that, in view of the adverse IB report, Kumar should not be allowed to continue as a Madras High Court judge after his two-year term came to an end. This recommendation was sent to the Union Government. However, Tamil Nadu politicians from the DMK reportedly pressured then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose coalition Government depended on their support, to ensure that no adverse action was taken against Kumar. Eventually, Mr lahoti sent a letter to the Government of India to give another term to that controversial jurist.
Mr lahoti has since refuted Mr Katju’s claim. “Justice Katju never, at any point in time, gave me in writing that Justice Ashok Kumar was corrupt or not worth being made permanent,” the former CJI said. “The least Justice Katju could have done as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court was to withdraw the recommendation of Justice Kumar being made permanent, if he was corrupt — and that would have been the end of the matter.”
Another former Chief Justice of India, Mr KG Balakrishnan, has also hit back at Mr Katju, terming the allegations as “completely baseless”. He has trashed the reports that he and two other former Chief Justices of India made “improper compromises” in retaining a tainted Tamil Nadu judge during UPA rule. Mr Balakrishnan also said, “There is no political pressure or anything of that sort or any corruption. I do not know what he (Katju) is saying.”
However, Mr HK Bhardwaj, who was the Union Minister for law and Justice, during the episode, has somewhat supported Mr Katju’s claim. He has said that “the DMK was an important ally (of the UPA) and party MPs came to see me, in my office, saying that the Madras High Court judge was being discriminated against.” Mr Bhardwaj also confirmed that his Cabinet colleagues from the DMK had approached him for an extension of Kumar’s tenure and that he himself had written to then Mr lahoti about the extension.
In other words, since the DMK was an important coalition, ally, an out-of-the-ordinary request such as this was entertained by the Government. Mr Bhardwaj, however, dismissed allegations by Mr Katju that Mr Kumar was tainted. “Appointment of judges is not a family affair”, he said, adding that the Chief Justice of India had conducted an inquiry and cleared Kumar.
The claims and counter-claims made in this case notwithstanding, it is an unfortunate truth that any regime will do just about anything to stay in power. Sometime its actions maybe clothed in legal nicety and sometime it maybe presented in the garb of national interest. Politicians know that public memory is short, but at the right time, the memory does come back. For instance, the previous Government wanted to bring an ordinance to shield parliamentarians with criminal records. It was the seemingly idealistic Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, who publicly said that the ordinance was fit to be torn up.
As a public servant, this columnist too had to face political pressure — while dealing with the fodder scam, he was transferred out of the Central Bureau of Investigation for not toeing the line of the then Prime Minister. Public ethics is often talked about but rarely encouraged. Except in a few cases of men of probity, most politicians are still strangers to words like ‘ethics’, ‘morals’ and ‘compliance’. Take, for instance, the allotment of sarkari bungalows to those that are not eligible for such perks in New Delhi. This is a common practice upon which even the Supreme Court has frowned.
Similarly, a politician has publicly blamed the UPA regime for not helping save his daughter in the 2G scam. In reply, the Congress has said that the case was being monitored by the apex court. People have still not forgotten how Mr Ashwani Kumar, then Union law Minister, lost his job for reportedly ‘doctoring’ the CBI report on the coal block allocation scam, or for that matter, how Mr Pawan Kumar Bansal had to quit as Rail Minister after his nephew was caught red- handed accepting a bribe to promote an officer to a top job in Indian Railways.
As for the allegations levelled by Mr Katju, they are yet to be verified by the authorities. However, the former jurist has surely opened a can of worms, and in doing so has rendered yeoman’s service to the public. He has tackled corruption in the judiciary head on and made it a national talking point. Good governance is the key to a heathy and prosperous democracy. It is also needed to strengthen the judiciary, not restricting the judicial system, which is an important pillar of the nation. However, for the judiciary to perform its functions effectively, it must first get its house in order.