Judge can’t be punished:
SC
New Delhi, March 3
Amid questions being raised
over the Jessica Lall murder case judgement delivered by Justice S.L. Bhayana
before his elevation to the Delhi High Court from the post of additional
sessions judge and the President recently returning the file regarding
his confirmation, the Supreme Court in a significant ruling has laid down
that no judge can be punished for “erroneous or wrong” judgements.
A three-judge Bench, headed
by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, held that if disciplinary actions were
taken against a judge for an “erroneous or wrong” judgement, it would ultimately
harm “our judicial system... and cause greater damage to the administration
of justice”.
The Bench with Justices Lokeshwer
Singh Panta and D.K. Jain as the other two judges, said “fearlessness and
maintenance of judicial independence are essential for an efficacious judicial
system. Making adverse comments against subordinate judicial officers and
subjecting them to severe disciplinary proceedings will ultimately harm
the judicial system at the grassroots level.”
Though recognising that there
is always a chance of a wrong judgement being passed by a judge and even
the legal system of the country “acknowledges fallibility” of judges, the
CJI writing the judgement for the Bench said merely for this reason a judge
could not be put under “psychological pressure”.
The judicial system of the
country was built in a manner that if any wrong was committed in a judgement,
a procedure had been laid down for correction by the appellate courts right
up to the Supreme Court, the apex court held.
The court said any disciplinary
action could only be initiated if “prima facie” material had been produced
to show that a judge was guided by any “extraneous” factors or considerations
and he had shown recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duties
or had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or had passed an order
actuated by corrupt motive, but holding such a view without proof was dangerous
for the judiciary.
The judgement came on an
appeal of additional sessions judge (ASJ) Ramesh Chander Singh from Jhansi
in Madhya Pradesh who had granted bail to a college student, Ram Pal, in
a murder case in 1996 on the grounds that his father had suffered a heart
attack and the two co-accused had already been granted bail earlier.
However, a brother of the
victim filed a complaint against Singh that he was paid Rs 80,000 by Ram
Pal’s father for getting the bail, rejected three times earlier.
Though the MP High Court
inquiry committee, headed by a sitting judge, found no truth in the allegation
of bribery against ASG Singh, yet it held that the bail was granted in
“utter disregard of judicial norms and on insufficient grounds and based
on extraneous consideration with oblique motive”.
However, the apex court found
that the inquiry judge’s report had not said a word about what was the
oblique motive or extraneous consideration involved and as a result the
ASJ was demoted a rank below to the post of civil judge.
Finding no material on record
against the ASJ, the court ordered his reinstatement to the elevated post
of District Judge with all consequential benefits..
However, at the same time,
it remit the case back to the MP High Court Chief Justice to place it before
the “full court” Bench which was only competent to decide the question
of punishment, if any, required to be imposed on him for any other reason
than the judicial verdict given by him.
|