Join us for an in-depth discussion on the recent blaze at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, which led to the discovery of a massive pile of cash. The Supreme Court has initiated an investigation, and the Chief Justice of India has set up a three-member committee to inquire into the matter. Allegations of corruption and suggestions of a possible setup are being debated. This podcast features insights from distinguished jurists and legal experts on the implications of this scandal for the judiciary. Additionally, the discussion covers judicial accountability, the debate between the Collegium system and the National Judicial Accountability Commission (NJAC), and the need for judicial reforms. It also examines the role of the political executive in judge appointments and the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. A key quote from the discussion: 'The independence of the judiciary must be maintained or else nothing is left of democracy.' Explore the challenges and potential solutions to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00So there was a blaze at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Verma
00:04but it led to the recovery of a massive pile of cash
00:07Big breaking news that's coming in
00:09The Supreme Court has initiated an investigation into the High Court Judge Verma
00:14at whose residence piles of cash were found
00:17A very detailed report has now been submitted to the Chief Justice of India
00:22This report has been submitted by the Delhi High Court
00:30The Supreme Court has now officially transferred the Judge Justice Verma
00:53back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court
00:56Do you believe that this case will be swept under the carpet as some fear
01:02or is it moving in the right direction?
01:05There are the half burnt notes
01:07What was the police doing when it reached there?
01:10Why did it not make a punch number with two independent witnesses?
01:14How did income tax not come into the picture?
01:18There is corruption in the higher judiciary
01:22Can we say that now with any conclusiveness?
01:25The real way out is to have a structured revamp of these kind of inquiries
01:33and the process of impeachment which is virtually well now impossible
01:37Are you saying you are not ruling out the possibility that Justice Verma was set up?
01:42I wouldn't use the word set up but I would say that I am not ruling out the possibility
01:46that he is totally unaware or uninvolved
01:50unless these disturbing questions are answered one way or the other
01:52So there are four vital things
01:54Open or closed door
01:55If locked, how broken?
01:57Video
01:58Punch number
01:59Witnesses
02:00Inventorization
02:01And where is the cash?
02:09Hello and welcome
02:10Mounds of cash being found in the outhouse of a sitting Delhi High Court Judge's residence
02:16have shaken the higher judiciary of the country
02:20and become a major talking point
02:23Allegations of corruption, fixing on one hand
02:26and even suggestions that it could be a giant set up on the other are doing the rounds
02:31The Chief Justice of India has stepped in
02:34and set up a three-member committee to inquire into it
02:38The judge has been transferred
02:40A police investigation is also on
02:42and the matter is now echoing in Parliament
02:46At the heart of this major debate lies the question
02:50Who will judge the judges?
02:52And what are the implications of this scandal for the country's judiciary?
02:57Joining us today on this very special round table
03:01Justice Sanjeev Banerjee
03:03one of the country's distinguished jurists
03:05former High Court Judge both in Madras and Meghalaya
03:09I'm also joined by Colin Gonsalves
03:11Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
03:13who's been battling for judicial accountability for years
03:16Gopal Shankar Narayanan
03:17Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
03:19joins us
03:20Orgo Sengupta
03:21Founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
03:23has done his PhD on judicial appointments from Oxford
03:27and Satyapal Jain
03:28former MP and Additional Solicitor of India
03:31joins us in his personal capacity
03:33I appreciate all of you joining us
03:35I'm going to come question by question, gentlemen
03:38to each of you
03:39to get a sense of why this is such a big talking point
03:43The first question I raise
03:45Is corruption in higher judiciary real or exaggerated?
03:51Why don't you start, Justice Banerjee
03:53since you've seen it from the inside
03:55as a High Court Chief Justice
03:58Is corruption in the higher judiciary real or exaggerated?
04:01There are those who have said
04:03at least 50% of our judges have something to answer for
04:11The judiciary is not outside the society
04:14So if there is some element of corruption in society
04:19that is reflected in the judiciary also
04:22I don't think it's 50%
04:23I don't even think it's close to 20%
04:26But I won't be able to give you a figure
04:28But that there is corruption in the judiciary
04:31in the higher judiciary
04:33is beyond question
04:34No one should live in a fool's paradise
04:37and say that there is no corruption in the judiciary
04:41I want to understand
04:43when you say there is no corruption in the judiciary
04:46says Justice Banerjee
04:48Colin Gonsalves
04:49as someone who's claimed that there is widespread corruption
04:52Can we quantify it?
04:53Is it fair at all to quantify and say
04:56there are a number of judges who are corrupt
04:58We've seen what happens when we
05:00paint everyone with a broad brush
05:02How would you respond to those who say
05:03we are unfair to the judges
05:05when we say judicial corruption is widespread?
05:11Well Rajdeep, when I came into the Supreme Court in the year 2000
05:16we would hardly hear people talking among themselves
05:20lawyers talking about this judge being corrupt
05:23or that judge being corrupt
05:25And now when I listen to some of our very young colleagues
05:29entrance at the bar
05:30who are obviously repeating things that their seniors
05:34have discussed in their chambers
05:35I don't understand and it horrifies me
05:38it frightens me
05:40to see how they are talking openly about widespread corruption
05:43right across the country
05:45It's frightening
05:47Now if you look at corruption in terms of giving cash
05:50I don't know, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to
05:53you know, 50%, 40%
05:55but there's a bigger corruption
05:57and that is the corruption of closeness to the government
06:00where a politician phones a judge
06:03a politician phones a judge hearing a case
06:07and says in this case
06:09do this, do that, do this, do that
06:12No, no, one minute, one minute, one minute
06:13No, no, are you, are you telling
06:15No, no, one minute
06:16No, no, one minute
06:17Are you telling me that politicians are ringing up judges
06:20because you, you know
06:21is this based on gossip, speculation
06:23where is the evidence that a judge has been rung up by a politician
06:26you see, that's the problem
06:28how much of this is real, how much of it is exaggerated
06:35There's no evidence at all
06:37and there will never be evidence forthcoming
06:40because there's no system for catching corruption in the judiciary
06:44So on what basis did you say politicians are being rung up by politicians
06:48on what basis did you say on the show, sir, with due regard
06:50on what basis did you say judges are being rung up by politicians
06:53and that's the real corruption
06:58Yeah, that I'm saying it purely on the basis
07:01of discussion that takes place in legal circles
07:05people are talking about it openly
07:07like I told you, there's no other evidence
07:10but talk by even senior lawyers and others
07:14in the corridors of the Supreme Court and the High Courts
07:18is to me, by itself, a very frightening development
07:23a very worrying development
07:25for the integrity of the judicial system
07:28Let me take that then to you, Satyapal Jain
07:30because you have been both a former MP
07:32now you're Additional Solicitor General
07:34I want to get it clear from you
07:35here is Colin Gonsalves saying
07:37the talk in the corridors of judiciary
07:40whether it's in lower courts, higher courts
07:42is that judges could be contacted by politicians
07:46yes, there could be judicial corruption
07:48there could be fixers out there
07:50How do you see it?
07:51Is it real or exaggerated?
07:52Have the chickens come home to roost?
07:55I don't agree with him
07:57that the corruption or political interference is to that extent
08:01Of course, incidents, reports are increasing now
08:04I joined the profession in January 1980
08:06and during last 45 years I have seen
08:09the numbers of cases of corruption etc.
08:12they are increasing
08:13but let's not forget that it is the judiciary
08:16which one single judge of the Allahabad High Court
08:19could dare to set aside the election
08:21of the sitting Prime Minister of India
08:23That was 1975
08:25That was 1975, we are in 2025
08:28You are admitting as an ASG
08:30Albert, in your personal capacity
08:33that since you became a lawyer in 1980
08:35compared to today
08:36number of cases where judges are being accused of corruption
08:39have increased
08:40Do you concede that?
08:42But let's not forget
08:43those cases all put together also
08:45out of 1100 High Court judges
08:48the incidents are 8, 10 or 12
08:50Rumors are there, everywhere it can be
08:52anybody can say I did this and that
08:55and I feel 95-98% judges are honest
08:58Supreme Court, High Court also
09:00It is few people who have entered here
09:02by one reason or the other
09:04who are causing this type of
09:06what should I use
09:08shameless actions bringing the whole judiciary
09:10Do you agree with Colin Gonsalves
09:12when he says that there are reports
09:14that politicians ring up judges to fix cases
09:16Not to my knowledge
09:18I have not ever heard of it
09:20If he has any evidence
09:21I think one thing we should also learn now
09:24If we have any specific instance
09:25why should we keep it to ourselves
09:27report to the Chief Justice
09:28report to the people concerned
09:30so that the matter can be investigated
09:32Simply saying any person will not
09:34make any difference
09:36Gopal Shankar Narayanan
09:38we are getting two clear views
09:40One being suggesting that
09:42this could be the tip of the iceberg
09:44that what has been
09:46hinted about in judicial corridors
09:48is now coming to the surface
09:50the other which is that
09:5298% of judges are honest
09:54a few rotten eggs should not
09:56reduce public confidence in the judiciary
09:58Where do you stand?
10:00Is the corruption real or exaggerated?
10:02Look, I would
10:04defer to a large degree
10:06with the person who has been closest
10:08to the system from the inside
10:10which in my view is Justice Banerjee
10:12I echo his sentiments
10:14entirely. I believe that
10:16much like we lawyers
10:18would know the truth about lawyers at the bar
10:21judges would know the truth about judges
10:23because there is very little
10:25interaction that happens between the bar
10:27and the bench, at least openly
10:29there is very little that happens except
10:31from some official functions
10:33and things like that
10:35I believe that the level of corruption
10:37which is financial corruption
10:39is insignificant
10:41if almost as close
10:43to 1% if at all
10:45from what I have seen
10:47and we are all regular practitioners in the courts
10:49court corridor gossip is virtually
10:51unsparing about
10:53judges primarily because
10:55they are the ones who decide the fate
10:57of our cases etc.
10:59You know when there are whispers about certain
11:01judges etc. For example
11:03as far as Yashwant Verma is concerned
11:05I have never ever heard anything
11:07negative about him integrity wise
11:09ability wise, confidence wise
11:11at all. So I would go
11:13out on a limb and say in my view
11:15Yashwant Verma is absolutely clean
11:18No you are making a huge
11:20you are claiming Yashwant Verma
11:22in your view is absolutely clean
11:24which will then bring me
11:26which will then bring me what was the
11:28cash doing? Are you then suggesting
11:30right at the very outset of this debate
11:32that this could be a giant set up
11:34which will then bring me to where did you find
11:36the cash because nobody did
11:40Sir the supreme court itself has released
11:42the video of the burnt cash
11:44that video is the only
11:47thing anybody has which is forwarded
11:49from the commissioner of police
11:51but as far as I am concerned
11:53I have not seen any cash recovery
11:55I have not seen it. Now as lawyers
11:57we are trained to be a little careful
11:59because we present cases based
12:01on evidence. Let the evidence
12:03come, let the enquiry take place
12:05let the responses be considered
12:07let the timing including the absence
12:09of the judge from his one acre
12:11residence where in an outhouse
12:13something was found. Let all those things
12:15At the moment I don't want to prejudge anything
12:17I am telling you my opinion based
12:19on the exact same corridor gossip
12:21which has made its way to Mr. Gonsalves
12:23as well. As far as we are concerned
12:25the level of, to answer
12:27your question directly, the level of
12:29financial corruption is
12:31almost minimal. It's there but
12:33but it's almost minimal. The level
12:35of political orientation
12:37a level of
12:39dishonesty that may come into judgements
12:41because of that may be a little more
12:44Orgo Sengupta
12:46as someone who has researched this subject deeply
12:48where do you stand on it?
12:50Is the corruption real or exaggerated?
12:52So I am not
12:54privy to all the
12:56corridor gossip that the previous speakers
12:58are privy to. So I may be excused
13:00for my ignorance on that count
13:02but I think the
13:04you mentioned that this may be the tip of an
13:06iceberg. I think there is an
13:08iceberg but I doubt very much
13:10that this particular example is
13:12the right tip.
13:14As you were saying that we must
13:16wait for the inquiry committee to come out
13:18with its report because at this point
13:20of time as this looks
13:22like a case that is
13:24we should not jump to hasty conclusions.
13:26Having said that, why is there
13:28an iceberg? I think there are some facts
13:30that suggest that there is considerable
13:32amounts of corruption
13:34that exist in the judiciary.
13:36The closest we can get
13:38to evidence is
13:40we have cases such as
13:42the case of Justice Ramaswamy
13:44which was an impeachment
13:46that almost went through. We have
13:48a case of Soumitra Sen, another impeachment
13:50where the judge resigned. Justice
13:52Paul Daniel Dinakaran who was the Chief Justice
13:54of the Karnataka High Court and
13:56clearly according to the inquiry committee
13:58report by the judges had encroached on land.
14:00So there are many cases
14:02where there are recorded facts that
14:04there is corruption that exists in the
14:06higher judiciary not just among judges
14:08but amongst Chief Justices
14:10and also in one case
14:12the judge of the Supreme Court.
14:14Of course other than that, so that's at the
14:16level of evidence and the level of perception
14:18I think the speakers before me have already
14:20said it that there is a growing perception
14:22that some
14:24judges are on the peak and everyone knows
14:26that this perception does exist
14:28and I think it's
14:30a sad day for everybody that this
14:32perception has only been growing
14:34and it is growing because proactive steps
14:36have not been taken and the judiciary
14:38continues to remain under the view
14:40that if it kind of
14:42keeps its like an ostrich, if it keeps its
14:44eyes tucked in
14:46that things will go away but things don't go
14:48away. So I think this is really a wake up
14:50call for the judiciary. There
14:52are rotten apples and I think it's time
14:54to deal with those rotten apples with
14:56transparency and not brush it
14:58under the carpet as the Chief Justice of India
15:00will do in this case.
15:02Given that, given all that has been
15:04said therefore, I come to my
15:06second question. Is an
15:08in-house inquiry and transfer
15:10as has been done in Justice Verma's
15:12case the best way to
15:14tackle corruption allegations? Justice Banerjee
15:16to you again as an insider
15:18there are those critics who say
15:20can an in-house inquiry of
15:22judges themselves decide the fate
15:24of a fellow judge? We've already heard
15:26one of my panelists suggest
15:28he believes Justice Verma has
15:30a spotless record and thereby
15:32seem to indicate that don't be surprised
15:34where is the evidence? It could
15:36be a setup. He didn't use the word setup. That's
15:38my word. But do you believe an in-house
15:40inquiry and transfer is the
15:42best or only way to deal with
15:44potential cases of judicial corruption?
15:46First, the
15:48issue of transfer. The
15:50press release issued by the Supreme Court
15:52indicated that the transfer had nothing
15:54to do
15:56with the discovery
15:58of cash at the judge's
16:00residence.
16:02Having said that,
16:04even if the transfer had nothing to do with it,
16:06the transfer should not have taken
16:08place at the moment. It should have
16:10been kept in abeyance till
16:12the inquiry was over.
16:14Secondly, as to the in-house
16:16inquiry, that is the only
16:18procedure which is now
16:20established for some time that
16:22the Chief Justice of India sets it up
16:24and you have to defer
16:26to the
16:28Office of the Chief Justice of India
16:30that he would have chosen persons
16:32of impeccable integrity
16:34and caliber to get
16:36to the bottom of this.
16:38But judges, sir, with due regard,
16:40with due regard, sir, with due regard,
16:42sir, with due regard, given
16:44no one doubts the integrity of members of an
16:46inquiry committee, but are they the right
16:48people in a case like this
16:50given the controversy swirling
16:52around in it, given that whatever
16:54has been found requires a police
16:56income tax investigation,
16:58is this to be done by judges
17:00or by police and income tax?
17:02No one is saying that
17:04the members of the committee
17:06cannot get inputs
17:08from anywhere that they want. It's
17:10an open inquiry. Now
17:12you know the surface jurisprudence in this country
17:14establishes departmental
17:16proceedings. So when departmental
17:18proceedings are held, when
17:20a prime office review or
17:22an investigation into charges of
17:24corruption or misdemeanor are taken
17:26up, they are done by the seniors
17:28in that particular
17:30branch. Whether it's a bank,
17:32whether it's a bureaucrat,
17:34whether it's the police, I do not
17:36know why the same should not apply
17:38for judges. And if
17:40there is something which is found,
17:42everything of course ought to be made public.
17:44If there is something which is found
17:46and the Chief Justice of
17:48India recommends impeachment,
17:50thereafter under the Judges Inquiry Act
17:52there is a separate inquiry which
17:54takes place and which is
17:56the present mechanism.
17:58The fact is
18:00sir, no one has been impeached.
18:02We haven't had a successful impeachment in
18:04more than seven decades. The question is
18:06if any other public functionary
18:08was allegedly accused
18:10of stacking such cash
18:12in their house, there would be a proper
18:14police investigation. Why should judges be
18:16treated separately? You've got to
18:18realize the nature of the job.
18:20In every litigation
18:22there is one disgruntled party
18:24and every day that
18:26disgruntled party will be complaining that
18:28the other side bought the judge or the judge
18:30did not know the law or the judge has been
18:32influenced this way or the other.
18:34The nature of the job is such
18:36that you have to keep
18:38the persons insulated to
18:40some extent. And that is what
18:42the constitutional experts,
18:44the visionaries thought,
18:46impeachment was the only way.
18:48But we also have to have
18:50a mechanism now for
18:52these things to be inquired in-house
18:54and for measures short
18:56of impeachment to be taken
18:58maybe within the judiciary itself.
19:02Justice Chitutosh Mukherjee was the Chief Justice
19:04of the Bombay High Court. There were
19:06allegations of corruption against three
19:08judges. He
19:10withdrew work from the three judges
19:12and ultimately persuaded the three judges
19:14to resign. There have been
19:16other instances. A judge in the Delhi
19:18High Court against whom there was
19:20some evidence was called by the Chief Justice
19:22of India and he
19:24agreed to resign. So there
19:26are ways and means of doing it.
19:30I take your point.
19:32You maintain an in-house system is still the
19:34best given that you believe
19:36that judges need to
19:38be insulated and therefore
19:40it has to be done in-house. Do you agree with that
19:42Colin Gonsalves? Should judges have any
19:44special privileges that an in-house
19:46inquiry commission is the only way
19:48to tackle judicial corruption in your view?
19:50There are those already who are saying
19:52that there should have been arrests if necessary
19:54made in a case like this. The police
19:56should have acted swiftly, had a panchnama
19:58in place, none of which has happened.
20:02See, I don't agree
20:04with that at all. In the present case
20:06of the present judge, I think
20:08I would be very very
20:10hesitant to jump
20:12to the conclusion and to
20:14you know, join this
20:16sort of
20:18anger or whatever
20:20against what is happening. He deserves
20:22a right to be defended. He deserves
20:24to be heard carefully and he doesn't
20:26deserve, he certainly
20:28doesn't deserve to be condemned
20:30in the manner in which he has been
20:32condemned. Having said that
20:34this in-house inquiry
20:36let me tell you is a knee-jerk
20:38reaction. It's cosmetic.
20:40It has always been
20:42like that and I don't think there is any
20:44interest in the judiciary
20:46to have a structured
20:48permanent continuous system
20:50because allegations
20:52of corruptions are made against session judges
20:54they're made against all kinds
20:56of judges, sometimes
20:58genuinely, sometimes
21:00falsely. You need a structured
21:02system where they can immediately
21:04swing into action. You don't
21:06need the Chief Justice to appoint three
21:08judges as a one-time thing
21:10that will come up for some time in the news
21:12and then disappear. This is
21:14a cosmetic thing again
21:16which the judiciary has engaged in for many
21:18many years. So what would you suggest?
21:20No, so what would you suggest?
21:22No, if this is cosmetic, if this is cosmetic
21:24what would you have done? A structured system where you have a permanent
21:26I'm telling you
21:28I'm telling you a permanent
21:30system where the
21:32senior most judges
21:34form together with
21:36other members of society
21:38very reputed people
21:40a committee, a kind of a body
21:42to investigate on a
21:44regular basis any
21:46allegation of corruption against
21:48any judge. Right through
21:50the year they'll be investigating
21:52and the police will certainly not
21:54be the head of that investigation
21:56it has to be by judges
21:58of impeccable repute
22:00mixed with other persons who can
22:02contribute to the investigation
22:04There are so many
22:06I hear so much and I'm appalled
22:08by what I hear. It can't be
22:10alright this will come up for a year
22:12it will stay in the news and then we'll
22:14go back to business as usual
22:16But how do you
22:18you know Gopal Shankar Narayanan
22:20how do we decide that this particular case
22:22deserves an in-house inquiry or even a
22:24structured inquiry of the kind that Colin
22:26Gonsalves is calling for rather
22:28than an ad hoc inquiry because
22:30the allegations are mounting
22:32In the lower judiciary we hear even more
22:34about the case of session judges
22:36district judges, there are even wider
22:38allegations. Given all that
22:40can we have a structured system in your
22:42view that can be there, a permanent
22:44system that any individual
22:46any citizen tomorrow, a whistleblower
22:48for example, could report to
22:50this committee and then the committee decides if it's a
22:52prima facie case they will inquire
22:54into it or do you believe that would
22:56that would in its own way
22:58create even more problems
23:02I think a major issue
23:04is with reference to the practicality
23:06of this whole thing
23:08As of now we have
23:10two systems in place, one is under
23:12the judges inquiry act
23:14which is where the president
23:16will refer it to the houses
23:18and there will be an initiation of
23:20impeachment proceeding etc if they
23:22find that there's something against the man
23:24or woman as the case may be
23:26The second is this in-house procedure
23:28which came out of the restatement of judicial
23:30values in 1998 by a full
23:32court of the supreme court
23:34There is of course a third sanction aspect
23:36with reference to criminal proceedings which arises
23:38under the Veeraswamy judgment which is a constitution
23:40by judgment. Now these procedures
23:42exist at the moment
23:44I think in
23:46I think as a hypothetical
23:48situation it would be ideal
23:50to have a structure
23:52like Mr. Gonsalves suggests
23:54The only problem is a
23:56who will people it, people who are beyond
23:58any kind of influence
24:00either political or otherwise
24:02B, what will be the level
24:04of accountability and transparency there
24:06will we have everything being
24:08put up on a website on a daily
24:10basis for the world to
24:12have its opinions drawn on it
24:14and C, will there be a challenge
24:16process because if there is a challenge
24:18process eventually like everything else
24:20it's going to wind its way up to the
24:22very supreme court where questions
24:24itself may be taken
24:26about the judges
24:28who are the ones who are under question
24:30so for me
24:32the idea of a system is great
24:34but how do we build such a
24:36system and one last thing
24:38Rajdeep, just one last thing, sorry
24:40on the lower judiciary
24:42I know they have come under
24:44a lot of flack in the past
24:46but I must tell you some of the
24:48best judges we have today are
24:50in the lower judiciary. It's
24:52unfortunate that this perception
24:54seems to be there that at the lower
24:56judiciary there is some kind of
24:58compromise that takes place etc
25:00but I am very optimistic
25:02about our lower judiciary. We have some of
25:04the finest students from
25:06law colleges across the country who are joining
25:08the lower judiciary. They are all very
25:10good, very independent. I
25:12hope we don't have such a view
25:14continuing to take root that in the
25:16lower judiciary there needs to be question marks
25:18Argun Sengupta, you wanted
25:20you raised your hand, go ahead
25:22Yeah, so just on Gopal's point, I think
25:24this is not also entirely hypothetical
25:26the judicial standards
25:28and accountability bill was introduced
25:30by the UPA government and at that
25:32point of time had a fair degree of
25:34bipartisan support. The idea
25:36behind that bill was exactly what
25:38we are discussing and what Mr.
25:40Gonsalves said that there should be a permanent
25:42mechanism for an
25:44in-house inquiry of this kind
25:46because the problem is this, today even if the
25:48in-house inquiry finds that there is something
25:50wrong with this gentleman, the fact
25:52is that there is really no power
25:54that the Chief Justice of India has to take any
25:56punitive action. What he can do is he
25:58can recommend impeachment and that's the only
26:00process that can commence
26:02so as Justice Banerjee was saying
26:04that what about measures short of impeachment
26:06you know there may be all kinds of misconduct
26:08that have now that we know have
26:10come to light in the last 75 years which
26:12our constitution framers may not have envisaged
26:14so what do we do with that kind of misconduct
26:16so there the judicial standards
26:18committee bill did two things one it
26:20said that there were certain kinds of actions
26:22that could be taken number one
26:24with stoppage of judicial work number
26:26two public censure number three
26:28issuing of advisories and warnings and we
26:30can debate these but there are actions
26:32short of impeachment that can be taken
26:34when there are cases of misconduct
26:36second who is in the
26:38part of this committee and that oversight
26:40committee that had been set up by that
26:42by that legislation if
26:44memory serves me right had
26:46the chief had a retired chief justice
26:48of india judge of the supreme court appointed
26:50by the chief justice a chief justice
26:52of a high court it had
26:54one eminent person appointed by the
26:56president if i remember right and the attorney
26:58general and there was a lot of debate about
27:00the attorney general but the fact is
27:02there may be two views but we need to
27:04have a high-powered
27:06non-partisan body that
27:08can look into these kinds of permanent
27:10complaints and you know the heavens will
27:12not fall the fact is that we
27:14know that anyone can file a complaint and
27:16you know all this stuff will happen yes there
27:18will be some complaints but those complaints
27:20can be screened out at an initial
27:22level just as a data point the uk
27:24judicial conduct and investigation
27:26office exists there are
27:28300,000 members of the uk judiciary
27:30give or take a few the fact
27:32is they receive on average between
27:342000 and 3000 complaints every
27:36year and the number that moves
27:38on to any sort of they
27:40take cognizance of is less than
27:421000 per year so you know the fact
27:44is that there are ways and means
27:46in which we can do it and i think this
27:48is again as i say reiterate this is a wake
27:50up call for us to have a constructive
27:52debate on a law on judicial
27:54standards and accountability and
27:56stop this ad hoc ism that has
27:58held the fort for so long yeah
28:00but the question is we've been talking about
28:02this i remember in the early 90s
28:04in mumbai
28:06even there we used to hear
28:08about judicial accountability
28:10judicial standards
28:12being legislated and the creation
28:14of a structure satyapal jain
28:16are the politicians really interested
28:18in actually fixing the
28:20problem or do they simply want
28:22control over appointment of judges
28:24that's all that they want they don't want
28:26to even get into the real issue of
28:28judicial accountability
28:30i know both politician and lawyer
28:32let's understand two things
28:34system what present is
28:36and system what do we want or
28:38field should be formed or more
28:40these are two different issues
28:42at the moment you put that first question
28:44the cgi had no other
28:46option i will use that word no other
28:48option except to order an inquiry into
28:50the whole incident which he has done and all
28:52the three members two of them are from
28:54my region the chief justice of punjab
28:56high court another honorable judge chief justice
28:58of himachal high court whose father was
29:00also a judge chief justice who was in
29:02my high court before he was appointed
29:04a man of unimpeachable integrity
29:06so he had no other option except
29:08to order an inquiry so far as the other
29:10options are concerned the chief justice
29:12has already ordered withdrawal of the
29:14judicial work from the honorable judge
29:16which practically amounts to suspension
29:18of the judge he will not be doing any judicial
29:20work transfer can be a issue
29:22of opinion somebody may say it should have
29:24been transferred somebody may say it should not have
29:26been transferred but the question that you have put
29:28it's not the question of politician
29:30i think it is a high time when
29:32we should rise above our political consideration
29:34our party consideration
29:36it's not a confrontation between judiciary
29:38legislature and executive
29:40the issue has come that
29:42such type of glaring incident
29:44where crores and crores of rupees are
29:46seen burnt at the residence of the house
29:48and the defense given by the honorable judge
29:50you might recall you have been doing
29:52that story when sukhram residence
29:54raided and about two crores were
29:56recovered the same defense was given by him
29:58also i don't know who has kept it
30:00my residence
30:02so you are more inclined to say that
30:04the judge has more to answer for am i correct
30:06you are saying the judge can't
30:08you believe that the judge has much to
30:10answer for he cannot get away by saying i don't
30:12know who's kept it there
30:14i say forget about that this much
30:16amount you can't even a normal man
30:18can have and cannot have at his residence
30:20from where this amount has come and
30:22his defense is not that it is my
30:24money could be you have sold
30:26your land you have purchased something
30:28the amount is mine his defense is
30:30practically the same which was that of
30:32mr. sukhram when his residence was
30:34raided in somewhere 92 93
30:36all people whose amount is recovered
30:38they say it's not my amount i don't
30:40know who has left it as if people want to
30:42just leave them out at their residence
30:44gopal shankar narayanan as someone who is saying that
30:46justice varma you believe is clean you are hearing
30:48satyapal jain saying that you know that
30:50the defense is not quite working to say
30:52i don't know who put the money there is a
30:54rather poor defense he says
30:56the major difference is that in
30:58sukhram's case he they found the money
31:00in this case there is no money
31:02let us have the inquiry
31:04go on to its conclusion let us
31:06not prejudge anything the
31:08in-house inquiry system permits
31:10them and they have as you've seen
31:12in the media itself get
31:14the help and service of
31:16police investigators etc
31:18then obviously take a look at the cctvs
31:20they look at the speed cameras which are on
31:22all the locales Delhi roads
31:24to figure out ingress and
31:26regress of cars phone
31:28calls so if it if it is
31:30found if he if he is found to be
31:32guilty you're very clear he should be arrested
31:34then and treated like any other common Indian
31:36citizen i
31:38believe the system should follow
31:40its way to its due course the due
31:42course with reference to the in-house inquiry is
31:44not arrest with reference to the in-house
31:46inquiry chief justice sarjeev
31:48karna has three options the
31:50first in case there is a complete
31:52exoneration he just submits
31:54the file and leaves it as it is
31:56second if there is a
31:58finding of guilt he normally
32:00usually calls up the judge
32:02gives the judge an option of
32:04resigning and ending matters there
32:06if the judge says no it goes to
32:08the third option which is sending it to the executive
32:10so impeachment proceedings are initiated
32:12that's the process that follows
32:14but beyond that it is also
32:16as i say he is at the end
32:18of the day he may be a judge but a citizen
32:20if it is found and it's a big if
32:22it is found that there is guilt prima facie
32:24it should be the subject of a criminal
32:26investigation justice banerjee are we
32:28clear about that absolutely
32:30judges are amenable to
32:32the prevention of corruption act and
32:34a judge who is prima facie
32:36found to be guilty
32:38after an in-house inquiry
32:40should be subjected to the law of the land
32:42like any other ordinary citizen
32:44okay that's very clear
32:46let's turn use that to turn to our
32:48third question therefore justice banerjee
32:50does the collegium
32:52system of appointing judges work or not
32:54should judges be appointing
32:56fellow judges you're already
32:58hearing from politicians who wanted
33:00the national judicial accountability
33:02commission to come in place the NJC
33:04they wanted the NJC
33:06to include both politicians
33:08and judges in the appointment
33:10of judges do you believe that's a
33:12better system or the present collegium system
33:14where the judges appoint their own
33:16is better
33:18first and foremost rajdeep
33:20we must not use this as an excuse
33:22to dismantle the collegium
33:24system
33:26if collegium system had not been put
33:28in place by interpreting
33:30the constitution the supreme
33:32court and most of the higher judiciary
33:34would today have been completely
33:36destroyed and taken over by
33:38politicians the independence
33:40of the judiciary must be maintained
33:42or else nothing is
33:44left of democracy
33:46now the collegium system is not perfect
33:48it must be
33:50bettered the political
33:52executive of the day has to be given
33:54a say but the primacy
33:56must always remain with the
33:58chief justice of India there
34:00should be a framework
34:02developed in the lines
34:04of the judgment in the NJC case
34:06where the primacy remains with the chief
34:08justice of India but the process
34:10of consultation with
34:12the political executive continues
34:14now what I've heard
34:16over the last few days in shows
34:18like this that
34:20today the collegium system
34:22has adopted a completely different
34:24methodology
34:26if you go by the
34:28supreme court judgments the collegium
34:30is supposed to recommend
34:32and then obtain a response from
34:34the government but today
34:36what is happening and as
34:38several former supreme court judges
34:40have said today there is a
34:42backdoor kind of discussion
34:44going on and only
34:46those names which are
34:48pre-cleared by the government are being
34:50recommended now that
34:52is not what the collegium system is
34:54supposed to be but if you
34:56you are saying something very serious
34:58you are saying only
35:00those judges who are
35:02pre-cleared by the political executive
35:04are becoming judges and that's
35:06happening behind closed doors and undermining
35:08the collegium system
35:10you can look at several of the programs
35:12and I've heard at least
35:14a couple of former supreme court very
35:16senior supreme court judges say this
35:18it should be an upfront process
35:20and a list which is
35:22given by the collegium
35:24should not be tinkered with
35:26you either follow the list or
35:28you come back to the collegium and say
35:30what is wrong with one name or two
35:32names or all the names on the list
35:34you can't pick and choose one out of that
35:36and disrupt the entire process
35:38of seniority that
35:40is envisaged by the supreme court collegium
35:42while submitting that list
35:44so therefore
35:46it has to be a much better
35:48system much more improved system
35:50some memorandum of procedure
35:52was kind of tentatively
35:54prepared that has to be improved
35:56and the collegium system needs
35:58to be bettered but
36:00with primacy always with the chief
36:02justice of India and the political
36:04executive having a say
36:06you know Satyapal
36:08Jain what I just heard is what again
36:10is said by a number of
36:12judicial officers of record
36:14that particularly in the last few years
36:16the political executive only
36:18wants judges who will fit in
36:20a particular either ideological
36:22or political framework so
36:24certain judges have not been able
36:26to
36:28enter the supreme court simply because
36:30there is a veto the political
36:32executive is exercising a veto in a way
36:34over the collegium system you have to
36:36pre-clear appointments
36:38I have to make two summations to
36:40in reply to that question number one
36:42I feel that there should be
36:44effective coordination between
36:46the judiciary as well as the executive in the
36:48appointment of the judges I have seen
36:50during the last so many years
36:52after the introduction of the collegium system
36:54by a large it is the view of
36:56the collegium that has prevailed there could be
36:58difference one or two issues which
37:00could differ you remember one of the
37:02cases where the collegium had also
37:04agreed the executive had also
37:06agreed his name had gone
37:08right up to PMO he was a
37:10session judge from UP
37:12who was to be promoted and ultimately
37:14some information came which
37:16was against the appointment
37:18and everybody agreed don't appoint him
37:20I am saying two things
37:22for about 35-40 years we
37:24had one system where
37:26the executive used to appoint judges in
37:28consultation with the chief judge that
37:30system was there for 35-40 years
37:32this system also produced people like
37:34Krishna Iyer, Justice Khanna
37:36Jagmohanlal Sinha then came the collegium
37:38system for about 35-30 years
37:40we have the collegium system
37:42which has also produced very eminent
37:44judges now everybody agrees
37:46that collegium is also not the best
37:48the earlier was also not the best
37:50now why not to try a third system
37:52also National Judicial Appointment Commission
37:54it also has the overwhelming
37:56dominance by the judiciary
37:58senior most judges, chief justice
38:00simply because law minister is there
38:02it doesn't mean that he will influence everybody
38:04Sir, I think the worry
38:06is the political executive
38:08being the kind of domineering political
38:10executive in the times that we have
38:12will try and exercise veto they have already done it
38:14I can give you couple of examples
38:16of how the executive
38:18has prevented some very capable judges
38:20from entering the Supreme Court
38:22only because the government
38:24of the day did not like their
38:26seemingly political position
38:28that's the worry, Colin Gonsalves
38:30do you believe that the collegium system has outlived
38:32its utility
38:36it's not outlived
38:38its utility but I can agree
38:40with the sentiments
38:42that is totally opaque
38:44in large part it has been
38:46supine to the executive
38:48and the lack of transparency
38:50is shocking for an institution
38:52that lectures everybody
38:54on transparency
38:56and this enunciation
38:58that the decision
39:00of the collegium shall not be
39:02called into question in any
39:04court is awful
39:06now look at the South African system
39:08by contrast
39:10a judge applies
39:12even the Supreme Court judge and the Constitutional
39:14Court judge who wants to be a
39:16judge applies, it goes on the
39:18website, people are given
39:20a chance to react and they can bring out
39:22all the faults or good
39:24points of the judge and after
39:26all that is collected then a body
39:28of jurists and
39:30government people and
39:32so on, they come together
39:34take all this feedback and choose the person
39:36but I think the judiciary
39:38itself is not interested
39:40in the judiciary itself
39:42the level of people, the percentage
39:44of people who are more
39:46loyal to the government than to the Constitution
39:48is rising in every
39:50court, you go to the high
39:52courts and ask your friends how many
39:54are pro-government
39:56and do what the government says should be done
39:58and how many are independent
40:00and look at the number of independent
40:02judges, fine
40:04good judges and the
40:06only fault was
40:08that they were independent of the executive
40:10they would not take orders from the
40:12executive and they are out
40:14they are out in the wilderness
40:16that's the tragedy
40:18of our collegiate system
40:20and I don't see any change happening
40:22in the New York judiciary at all
40:24given the contrasting views
40:26expressed, you've done your
40:28PhD on this, is there a better system
40:30to the collegium system or is it the
40:32best system that we have
40:34I think the NJC was a better system
40:36than the collegium system, my views on this
40:38are clear, the collegium system when
40:40it came to 2014 was a
40:42discredited system, it was a system
40:44that as Mr. Gonzalez rightly said
40:46it was a shockingly opaque system, no one
40:48knew why someone was being appointed and why
40:50someone was not being appointed
40:52it was done with all good intentions
40:54by Justice Verma, the Chief Justice
40:56of India at that point of time
40:58but it's something that has not
41:00worked out the way in which it ought to
41:02and I think this is at least one issue where
41:04actually everyone agrees on this
41:06that I think the collegium has
41:08deep faults and the very
41:10purpose which was that it would be a bulwark
41:12against the executive is a purpose
41:14that is not being served, so actually
41:16I am delighted by the fact that we are
41:18having a debate, a revival
41:20of the NJC because it
41:22seemed actually that over the course of the
41:24last few years that debate was
41:26dead because the judiciary
41:28and the executive had reached
41:30some kind of understanding in many issues
41:32and the fact is that while the judiciary
41:34and the executive of course needs to
41:36be on the same page
41:38with regard to appointments, it
41:40needs to follow a transparent process
41:42but transparency is one thing
41:44independence is the other
41:46will accountability commission
41:48result in independence if the
41:50law minister or
41:52someone from the government is sitting on the appointments
41:54so I think this is a complete
41:56mistake to think that the presence of
41:58one law minister
42:00with three judges
42:02including the Chief Justice of India
42:04and two eminent persons who are appointed
42:06by the Chief Justice, Prime Minister
42:08and Leader of the Opposition, one law
42:10minister sitting there is going
42:12to now imperil the entire
42:14process. Do we really think that our Chief Justice
42:16of India is so supine? We don't know
42:18who those two eminent persons
42:20would be.
42:22This is all speculation
42:24as to who those eminent people are
42:26I was there in court when this debate
42:28was happening in court where someone said
42:30what if that eminent person is Amartya Sen
42:32someone else said what if it is Akshay Kumar
42:34you know this is a speculative debate
42:36and I think it's best we don't have this
42:38the fact is structurally
42:40even if we were to maintain
42:42make a few tweaks to that system
42:44I agree with what Justice Banerjee
42:46is saying that there should be primacy
42:48to the judiciary. Three out of
42:50six members was primacy in my
42:52view because it needed a majority
42:54but even if we were to say make it four out of six
42:56one make it four judges
42:58one keep the law minister
43:00because the government needs to have
43:02a seat at the table
43:04because if the government does not have a seat at the table
43:06then it has a phone call
43:08so let's be clear that a seat at the table
43:10is better than a phone call. And have one eminent person
43:12if you think this eminent person is going to be
43:14compromised then have one eminent person
43:16and not two. For God's sake
43:18have a system that works
43:20and not continue with this collision
43:22Okay in our last ten minutes I want to
43:24therefore bring two questions together
43:26Is there enough accountability
43:28in our judiciary? And what will it
43:30take to restore public confidence
43:32in the judiciary? So is there enough
43:34accountability and what will it take to restore
43:36public confidence in judiciary?
43:38Gopal Shankar Narayanan wherever we
43:40stand on Justice Varma's case and it
43:42would be unfair to
43:44presume guilt at this stage
43:46innocent till proven guilty but there is a
43:48lack of public confidence in judiciary
43:50How do you
43:52restore it and do you believe
43:54there is enough accountability
43:56in the system already?
44:00Rajdeep I think
44:02a lot of it has to do with how far we have
44:04come. I think we
44:06started off with a very strong
44:08executive oriented appointment
44:10process and very little
44:12transparency at that stage
44:14we moved to what I believe was a better system
44:16than a pure executive system which was
44:18a collegial system
44:20which has slowly taken
44:22baby steps towards certain
44:24amount of transparency
44:26Now there has been criticism
44:28both ways I'll be honest where
44:30judges have not been considered
44:32for judgeship or
44:34they have not been considered to be brought to the Supreme Court
44:36or they have been considered to be transferred
44:38and you put the minutes of those collegial
44:40meetings up online
44:42it has made a dent as far as those
44:44judges are concerned. So
44:46sometimes there is a question
44:48should you have been that transparent about
44:50that? When you select
44:52there is also transparency but perhaps
44:54some parameters which may not be
44:56overly relevant like
44:58minority community person or person
45:00with a particular gender
45:02How do you restore public confidence?
45:04How do you restore public confidence?
45:06Given that there are people out there today
45:08seeing those wads of cash whether they are real
45:10whether they are fake notes all of that will be
45:12the subject of investigation. How do you
45:14restore public confidence?
45:16I think a large
45:18part of it Rajdeep to be honest
45:20and if you can take it
45:22with the greater scandal that I am
45:24mentioning this has to come
45:26from the side of the media
45:28I think the media
45:30and I am not including
45:32you among that but you do know all the
45:34media that I am referring to when I say this
45:36that if you have evening
45:38talk shows where in the most strident
45:40tones people scream at each other
45:42about how the judiciary has fallen
45:44about how all judges are
45:46under question marks then
45:48I think there is a big role that is being
45:50played which is causing a damage
45:52to the judiciary. So some part of
45:54that restoration has to come from there.
45:56Another part of the restoration has to of course
45:58come internally from within the judiciary.
46:00I agree that we need to
46:02have some sort of system that inspires
46:04some sort of confidence
46:06and like all your mentioned
46:08both the earlier structure which
46:10has to be in place for their accountability
46:12as well as something similar
46:14to the NJAC structure
46:16would be ideal ways of sending that
46:18message out. However, I believe
46:20some of these bodies should
46:22be manned by more than say
46:2415 or 18 people. So you keep it
46:26as broad based as possible with
46:28representatives from
46:30across civil society
46:32with the selection process
46:34which can properly be scrutinized.
46:36I think those kind of steps would
46:38send the right message out.
46:40Colin Gonsalves, how do you restore
46:42public confidence in the judiciary?
46:44I can tell you
46:48when I joined the profession
46:50the cases of the poor
46:52were center stage. Dalit
46:54cases, tribal eviction
46:56from forest, slum dwellers
46:58demolition cases, workers cases
47:00environmental law, they were
47:02center stage. Public interest
47:04litigation, good public interest
47:06litigation was center stage
47:08but with time all that changed
47:10and today what's priority
47:12number one? None of the
47:14cases of the poor are priority number one
47:16they are at the bottom of the list of
47:18priorities if you go to the registrar
47:20what is top priority?
47:22Commercial cases
47:24insolvency cases
47:26arbitration cases
47:28Chief Justice is dealing with arbitration
47:30cases from morning to afternoon
47:32where are the cases on human rights
47:34where are the cases of the poor
47:36so the Dalits are fed up
47:38they have gone out of the legal system
47:40the poor have gone out, slum dwellers
47:42have no hope in the Supreme Court
47:44the working class has got no hope
47:46environmentalists have stopped litigating
47:48because your court is not
47:50interested in cases
47:52regarding the masses of India
47:54you will never get that
47:56the solution is
47:58solution Rajdeep
48:00is for the judges
48:02and society will come to such a crisis
48:04level that society will
48:06communicate to judges
48:08we don't have faith in you, we loved you
48:10once upon a time, we respected you
48:12once upon a time, now we have lost
48:14faith in you, in fact it's even worse
48:16we dislike you
48:18because you are part of our oppression
48:20when that comes up in society
48:22by some kind of
48:24uprising of people, that's when
48:26the judges will realize
48:28they must change their attitude
48:30it's a ship at sea
48:32that won't be easy
48:34given that there are entrenched interests
48:36if you are saying that a large group of people
48:38feel angered and out of the system
48:40Satyapal Jain is someone who is an insider
48:42how do you restore public faith
48:44in the judiciary?
48:46I have to make three points, number one
48:48let's not find out a remedy
48:50which is worse than even the disease
48:52two
48:54the need for judicial
48:56reforms is now getting wider and wider
48:58all agree
49:00you may have one view or the other
49:02the time has come for thinking
49:04the judicial reforms more seriously
49:06including the working of the courts
49:08third, internal mechanism within the judiciary
49:10where they can check up all such incidents
49:12should be effectively strengthened
49:14and effectively implemented
49:16fourth
49:18last point, those who are working
49:20honestly, sincerely with commitment
49:22judges, should be given all protection
49:24nobody should be allowed to raise finger
49:26against them simply because you have
49:28lost your case there or they are not entertaining you
49:30at the same time, black sheep
49:32like the present one
49:34strict possible action should be
49:36taken against them so that it gives
49:38a signal to the other such
49:40people also and people
49:42will come to know that look here
49:44jo karega so bhare gaya tu kyu
49:46bahe udas, action will be taken against them
49:48those who are found guilty
49:50okay, you are saying visible action
49:52against those who are found guilty
49:54is a way to restore confidence
49:56Justice Banerjee, how does one
49:58restore confidence in the judiciary
50:00how does one ensure greater accountability?
50:02one
50:04the declaration
50:06of assets should be mandatory
50:08two
50:10and I have always believed this
50:12a good judge may not be a good
50:14manager, the efficiency level
50:16has to be raved
50:18and there should be a
50:20judicial management system
50:22and a judicial audit system
50:24which will look into the assets
50:26and report
50:28to a kind of a structured body
50:30which is in place to
50:32look into the allegations
50:34after sifting through the
50:36grievances
50:38secondly
50:40our disciplinary
50:42bodies, you know judges come
50:44from the bar, judges
50:46are lawyers first
50:48why have we destroyed
50:50these bodies which control
50:52professionals, our
50:54Bar Council of India is completely politicized
50:56our Chartered
50:58Accountants Body, Medical Council
51:00these have been robbed of their
51:02legitimacy
51:04if we had proper disciplinary
51:06bodies, then
51:08fixers and those who get
51:10fixed can be controlled by
51:12these bodies, at least the fixers
51:14can be controlled
51:16so you are saying there are fixers, Justice Banerjee
51:18you believe there are fixers
51:20out there, right? Of course there are
51:22let's not hide
51:24behind all this, there are fixers
51:26and there are people who get fixed
51:28and most
51:30importantly, I am very happy with what
51:32the blooded Judicial Solicitors said
51:34that you know, we must
51:36look beyond party
51:38sagacity speaking, we must
51:40look beyond party, it's a system that
51:42we are talking about
51:44we can't have, you know, immediate
51:46interest or party interest in
51:48mind, the system has to be
51:50given a degree of
51:52respectability and legitimacy
51:54so that it is acceptable
51:56the faith has
51:58eroded a bit, but still
52:00the people look up at the judiciary
52:02as the last resort
52:04your profession
52:06Rajdeep, that requires
52:08also to be corrected
52:10as we do
52:12that is another debate
52:14Democracy,
52:16the debate on the media
52:18all of those, the debate
52:20on the media is another debate, I will get you on
52:22that since you were also a former journalist
52:24I can tell people long before
52:26Mr. Banerjee became
52:28a lawyer and a judge, he worked
52:30in the Telegraph in the 1980s
52:32but I want to bring
52:34Orgo Sengupta to conclude
52:36Orgo, you've heard various viewpoints
52:38is there a magic bullet out
52:40there to restore public confidence
52:42in the judiciary, we've talked about
52:44potential fixers and we don't know whether those
52:46fixers will also get arrested
52:48it's one thing targeting the judge, what about
52:50all these fixers who are out there
52:52across
52:54many courtrooms
52:56given all of that, your final word
52:58what will it take according to you?
53:00I think the Supreme Court
53:02has always been good historically
53:04in turning challenges into
53:06opportunities, even when it was
53:08faced with the emergency and its lowest
53:10ebb, it turned it around with
53:12the spate of public interest
53:14litigations that it took up, so I hope
53:16that the Supreme Court plays this on
53:18the front foot and takes this
53:20challenge and makes it an opportunity
53:22in the following way, number one
53:24is the biggest problem that erodes
53:26public confidence in the judiciary
53:28is not actually what we are discussing
53:30but is actually pendency
53:32their cases don't get heard
53:34unless you're a rich litigant, so the
53:36fact is that the Supreme Court needs to
53:38make administration efficient
53:40it needs to professionalize it
53:42both the Supreme Court as well
53:44as the High Court should think of getting
53:46professional CEOs instead of
53:48appointing district judges as registrars
53:50it's unfair to those district judges to
53:52appoint them as managers of an institution
53:54it requires a professional CEO
53:56number one, number two
53:58is that we need to think about
54:00a judicial and I'm summarizing
54:02the views of broadly what I've heard here
54:04we need to think about some version
54:06of a judicial appointments
54:08and an accountability commission
54:10which is broad based, bipartisan
54:12and maintains judicial
54:14primacy, this will ensure
54:16that appointments happen in a transparent
54:18manner and also complaints
54:20and many complaints will be frivolous
54:22are dealt with effectively
54:24and fairly so that every
54:26time there is a situation of this nature
54:28we are not again left scrambling
54:30with an in-house procedure and
54:32FIRs being filed and so on
54:34I think both the judiciary
54:36and the government need to
54:38both think about this not in
54:40terms of us versus them
54:42but need to think about this
54:44as institutions of government
54:46that are meant to serve we the people
54:48you know those are
54:50fine words, Gopal you want 30
54:52seconds quickly, much
54:54shorter than that, in the last 10 years
54:56one of the finest judges
54:58that the high courts have ever had
55:00and who didn't come to the supreme
55:02court for reasons best known to others
55:04is sitting on your panel
55:06Justice Banerjee, we longed for
55:08him to come to the supreme court that did
55:10not happen unfortunately but by
55:12far I think one of the finest candidates
55:14we ever had in the country
55:16I was fortunate to appear before him
55:18in the Madras High Court
55:20He in fact was transferred from the
55:22Madras High Court and sent to Meghalaya
55:24presumably because he had spoken
55:26out in a manner that
55:28people in the establishment did not
55:30like given all of that
55:32Justice Banerjee let me give you the final word
55:34Do you
55:36live in hope
55:38that things will get better or do you think
55:40things will get worse before they get better
55:42I live in hope
55:44we have some brilliant
55:46people as judges in this country
55:48even at the highest level
55:50I live in hope
55:52we can bring about
55:54a kind of
55:56create a body which will be a permanent
55:58body like several others
56:00have suggested and I
56:02am always hopeful
56:04that we'll see more
56:06accountability not only in terms
56:08of you know integrity but
56:10accountability in terms of output
56:12which is equally important
56:14right
56:16there is another debate to be had on judicial
56:18delays and administration of justice
56:20and all the other critical issues that affect
56:22our judiciary but
56:24that it's taken an incident
56:26a shocking incident like this
56:28of those images coming of wads of
56:30notes at a judges house
56:32for us to debate this is perhaps
56:34a reflection on the state of the media
56:36that debates Hindu Muslim
56:38issues night after night on prime time
56:40television but doesn't
56:42debate the real issues that confront
56:44our institutions in
56:46a democracy let's
56:48remain hopeful
56:50as they say
56:52let's hope that this incident
56:54triggers a wider debate
56:56on how to ensure judicial
56:58accountability and restore public
57:00confidence in the highest judiciary
57:02of the country to all my guests
57:04thank you very much for joining me
57:06on this special round table
57:08and to you the viewers
57:10thanks for watching
57:12Namaskar Jai Hind