Govt. silent on reforms to address judicial misconduct

The Hindu

4 days ago

At a time when the government is seeking to remove Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi this March, the Law Minister, while speaking in Parliament, did not specify the government's stance on legislative reforms regarding the Supreme Court's in-house procedure to address judicial misconduct.
Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether reforms were required in the top court's procedure, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal only described the existing rules and regulations for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and did not speak on the need for reforms.
'Article 124 (4) provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,' he said.
'For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that 'A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court,' the Minister said in a written reply in the House.
The Minister described the procedure adopted by Parliament for the removal of a judge but skipped the reply to a question about steps being taken on reforms, and if there has been any consultation with experts on this.
Opposition parties and civil rights groups have, in the past, raised the demand for judicial accountability.
Apart from Justice Varma's case, questions on judicial integrity were raised by the Opposition when Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, last December, made veiled attacks on the Muslim community while speaking about Uniform Civil Code at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The judge had said that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'majority'. The Opposition, across party lines, had objected to the speech and had demanded his removal.
In the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said that the integrity and transparency of the judiciary needed to be maintained. 'We are for the removal of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that process,' he said.