Corruption within the Indian judiciary undermines public trust and the rule of law. Instances of judicial misconduct, ranging from bribery to favoritism, have surfaced over the years. Additionally, the trend of judges accepting post-retirement positions, especially those offered by the government, raises concerns about judicial independence.
Types of Judicial Corruption
1. Bribery: Accepting monetary or other incentives to influence judicial decisions.
2. Favoritism and Nepotism: Delivering judgments that favor friends, family, or associates.
3. Misuse of Authority: Exploiting judicial power for personal gain or to settle personal scores.
4. Deliberate Delays: Intentionally postponing hearings or judgments to benefit one party, often in exchange for favors.
5. Post-Retirement Placements: Accepting positions after retirement that may compromise prior judicial impartiality.
Notable Cases of Judicial Corruption
1. Justice SN Shukla (Allahabad High Court): In 2023, the CBI filed a case against Justice Shukla and his wife for allegedly amassing assets worth ₹2.45 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure between 2014-19.
2. Justice IM Quddusi (Orissa High Court): Arrested in 2017 for allegedly facilitating favorable judicial orders for a medical college in exchange for bribes.
3. Justice Nirmal Yadav (Punjab and Haryana High Court): Convicted in 2011 for accepting a bribe of ₹15 lakh to influence a judgment.
4. Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court): Impeached in 2011 for misappropriating ₹33.23 lakh as a court-appointed receiver before his elevation to the bench.
5. Justice PD Dinakaran (Sikkim High Court): Faced impeachment proceedings in 2011 over allegations of land grabbing and judicial misconduct; he resigned before the process concluded.
6. Justice Shamit Mukherjee (Delhi High Court): Arrested in 2003 for involvement in a land scam; he resigned following the scandal.
7. Justice Ramaswami (Supreme Court): Faced impeachment in 1993 for financial irregularities; the motion failed in Parliament, but the case highlighted judicial corruption.
8. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur (Punjab and Haryana High Court): In 2008, a bribe intended for another judge was mistakenly delivered to her residence, exposing a corruption nexus.
9. Justice Vijaya Kapse Tahilramani (Madras High Court): Resigned in 2019 after allegations of corruption and misconduct surfaced.
10. Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy (Andhra Pradesh High Court): Faced allegations in 2016 of threatening a Dalit judge and influencing judicial proceedings.
11. Justice S. Ashok Kumar (Madras High Court): Accused of corruption and judicial misconduct; despite controversies, he was transferred and later confirmed as a permanent judge.
12. Justice N. Kannadasan (Madras High Court): Faced allegations of corruption; he resigned in 2009 after controversies over his appointment as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
13. Justice A. N. Dinakar (Karnataka High Court): Accused of corruption and land allotment scandals in the early 2000s.
14. Justice S. K. Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court): Faced sexual harassment allegations in 2014; though a judicial committee cleared him, the case raised concerns about judicial accountability.
15. Justice T. S. Thakur (Supreme Court): Post-retirement, he faced criticism for accepting arbitration roles, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
16. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan (Supreme Court): Faced allegations of amassing disproportionate assets during his tenure as Chief Justice; however, no formal charges were filed.
17. Justice A. R. Lakshmanan (Supreme Court): Post-retirement, he was appointed as the Chairman of the Law Commission, raising discussions on post-retirement appointments.
18. Justice F. I. Rebello (Allahabad High Court): Faced allegations of favoritism and preferential allotment of land during his tenure.
19. Justice N. P. Singh (Patna High Court): Accused of financial impropriety and favoritism in judicial appointments during the 1990s.
20. Justice S. N. Phukan (Gauhati High Court): Faced allegations of corruption and misuse of official position in the early 2000s.
The practice of Indian judges accepting post-retirement positions has been a subject of debate, raising concerns about judicial independence and potential conflicts of interest. Here are 20 notable instances where judges have taken up roles after their retirement:
1. Justice Ranjan Gogoi: Former Chief Justice of India, nominated to the Rajya Sabha in March 2020, four months after retiring.
2. Justice P. Sathasivam: Appointed Governor of Kerala in 2014, becoming the first Chief Justice of India to assume a gubernatorial post.
3. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel: Appointed Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal on the day of his retirement in July 2018.
4. Justice Arun Mishra: Became Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission in June 2021, less than a year after retiring from the Supreme Court.
5. Justice M. C. Chagla: Served as Indian Ambassador to the U.S. (1958-61) and later as High Commissioner to the U.K. (1962-63) after retirement.
6. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy: Post-retirement, appointed as the first Chairperson of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
7. Justice Fathima Beevi: After retiring from the Supreme Court, served as Governor of Tamil Nadu from 1997 to 2001.
8. Justice S. Rajendra Babu: Appointed Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission in 2007 after retirement.
9. Justice A. K. Mathur: Post-retirement, served as Chairperson of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
10. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan: Became Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission in 2010 after retiring as Chief Justice of India.
11. Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah: Appointed Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission post-retirement.
12. Justice J. S. Verma: Served as Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission after retiring as Chief Justice of India.
13. Justice R. M. Lodha: Post-retirement, appointed to head the committee to oversee the functioning of the Medical Council of India.
14. Justice H. L. Dattu: Became Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission in 2016 after retirement.
15. Justice S. H. Kapadia: Post-retirement, appointed as Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.
16. Justice Y. K. Sabharwal: After retirement, served as Chairperson of the Constitution Review Commission.
17. Justice A. S. Anand: Appointed Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission post-retirement.
18. Justice R. C. Lahoti: Post-retirement, served as an arbitrator in various high-profile cases.
19. Justice Altamas Kabir: After retirement, engaged in various academic and arbitration roles.
20. Justice Dipak Misra: Post-retirement, involved in arbitration and delivering lectures on legal matters.
21. Justice Cyriac Joseph (Supreme Court): Became a member of the National Human Rights Commission post-retirement.
These appointments have sparked discussions about the potential impact on judicial independence and the need for a cooling-off period before judges accept post-retirement positions.
The appointment process within the Indian judiciary, particularly the Collegium system, has faced significant criticism due to concerns over transparency, accountability, and allegations of nepotism.
Issues with the Collegium System:
1. Lack of Transparency: The Collegium operates without a formal framework, leading to decisions made behind closed doors without clear criteria or public scrutiny.
2. Allegations of Nepotism: There are instances where judges have recommended their relatives for judicial appointments, raising concerns about favoritism.
3. Absence of Accountability: The Collegium’s decisions are not subject to external review, making it difficult to challenge or question appointments.
4. Opaque Selection Criteria: The lack of defined eligibility criteria has led to perceptions of arbitrariness in appointments.
Bias in State Judiciary Recruitment:
In state judicial services, there have been allegations that recruitment processes are biased, with a disproportionate number of candidates selected being relatives of existing judges.
• Prevalence of ‘Uncle Judges’: The term refers to judges whose relatives practice in the same courts, potentially leading to biased judgments.
• Dynastic Tendencies: Studies indicate that a significant percentage of judges have familial ties within the judiciary, suggesting nepotistic trends.
Recent Concerns:
In 2022, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the issue of nepotism within Indian institutions, including the judiciary, emphasizing the need for merit-based appointments.
Implications:
These issues undermine public confidence in the judiciary, potentially compromising its independence and the principle of fair justice.
Recommendations for Reform:
1. Establish Clear Criteria: Define transparent eligibility and selection criteria for judicial appointments.
2. Enhance Transparency: Make the Collegium’s proceedings and decisions publicly accessible to ensure accountability.
3. Implement Oversight Mechanisms: Introduce checks and balances to review and challenge appointments if necessary.
4. Promote Meritocracy: Ensure that appointments are based on merit to uphold the judiciary’s integrity.
Addressing these concerns is crucial to maintaining the judiciary’s independence and restoring public trust in the legal system.
