In most cases where allegations of corruption or impropriety are made, and they are made often enough against those in positions of power, from the lowly policeman to a prime minister, the ways of investigating a charge and dispensing justice are pretty set. In the case of politicians, the administration of justice is more complex because the investigating arms are under political control and get compromised""as the undistinguished record of the hapless Central Bureau of Investigation would testify. The problem, however, is more a matter of letting the process take its course unhindered; if that is a rare occurrence, then it may be necessary to make the investigation arms of the government free of political control. This can be done in a variety of ways: by their reporting directly to the magistracy (as is the case in France) or in other ways (as in the United States where a special prosecutor is appointed). India would almost certainly have seen a different outcome to the Bofors scandal (to take the most glaring instance) if the CBI had been free of political control. | |
| But what is to be done when allegations of impropriety are made against a judge, more particularly a retired Chief Justice of the country? In the earlier days of contempt law, even the truth was not acceptable as a defence; what is surprising is that this untenable position remained the law for as long as it did. Perhaps the explanation is that those occupying the highest positions in the judiciary were always like Caesar's wife, both scrupulously clean and seen to be so, and therefore the issue was never even posed as a problem. But what if that is not the case""a possibility that cannot logically be ruled out? Fortunately, the law as amended says that the truth will now be accepted as a defence. But that does not solve the problem because the truth can be established only if an allegation is properly investigated. If a case is not investigated, how will the truth ever get out? |
| |
| That is one of the problems posed by the case involving four Mid-Day journalists who have been sentenced to jail terms, with the sentences stayed till their appeal is heard. That the problem has moved off the front pages of newspapers does not mean that it has gone away. It would be unfortunate if the judiciary did not use the opportunity provided by a case that has attracted wide attention to set matters right, and thus to find a way to break what is today a closed loop that makes it impossible for anyone to investigate the conduct of judges. If people are to continue to have faith in the judicial system then, like Caeser's wife, judges have to go that extra mile to prove their virtue. If not, the biggest loser could end up being the judiciary itself, if the public's faith in the impartiality and integrity of the system cannot be tested and found to have passed the periodic test that poses itself. |
| |
|
| |
