*Why is there unruliness in the legal profession in India?* (Part 1)
*By Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana*
*As to why the i**nstances of recusal of Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of India and do citizens have a right to know why a judge has opted out of a case?*
*Justice Kurian Joseph answered it in the affirmative. “Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case… it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case,” Justice Joseph said in his verdict on National Judicial Appointments Commission.*
*“People have a right to know why judges recuse themselves from cases. The need for people to know increases when judges – one after the other offer recusal, especially in matters of public and constitutional significance.” And there are many instances of recusal of Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of India.*
*What does it mean or imply? Do all the judges with impeccable integrity, honesty and qualitative competency not available ever in the judicial system?*
*“It is good that the judiciary is invoking Article 224-A at least now although it should have happened long ago. Only such judges with impeccable integrity, honesty and qualitative competency in quick disposal of cases
should be appointed on temporary basis,” Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor-General of India said.*
*Many office-bearers of the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, have emphasised that only “non-controversial” judges should be appointed on ad hoc basis as Article 224-A of the
Constitution gives discretion to the Chief Justice and the President of India while appointing retired judges.*
*B.V. Acharya, former Advocate-General and former member of the Law Commission of India, said that successive Chief Justices of the High Court should have invoked the power under Article 224 at regular intervals, while welcoming the move to use the services of retired or retiring judges temporarily to address the issue of backlog of cases.*
*Mr. B.V. Acharya, former Advocate-General and former member of the Law Commission of India, “Making it clear that only “deserving and meritorious” judges with “proven track record” can be taken back to the Bench, Mr.
Acharya pointed out that a group of advocates, led by him, in 2010 had opposed the Bill to enhance retirement age of High Court judges to 65 from the present 62 as it would also benefit many “deadwoods” in the system.*
*Mr. A.R. Patil, chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council, said that only “non-controversial” judges should be considered as not all the retired or retiring judges could be considered for various reasons. ‘Only deserving
judges must be brought back’, KRISHNAPRASAD wrote.*