Revisiting Judicial Corruption
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar called for a reassessment of a landmark Supreme Court ruling from 1991. The case involved K. Veeraswami, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and has implications for judicial accountability. Dhankar linked this ruling to ongoing corruption issues within the higher judiciary, emphasizing the need for transparency and reform.
Background of K. Veeraswami
Kuppuswami Naidu Veeraswami began his legal career in 1941 and rose through the ranks to become Chief Justice in 1969. In 1976, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged him under the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing disproportionate assets. The case brought into light the intersection of law, ethics, and public service.
Legal Proceedings and Supreme Court Involvement
Following the CBI’s charge sheet, Veeraswami sought to quash the proceedings in the Madras High Court, arguing they were unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed his plea in 1979. The case was subsequently escalated to the Supreme Court, which ruled on July 25, 1991. The ruling established that judges of higher judiciary are subject to the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Implications
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion stated that judges qualify as ‘public servants’ under the PC Act. Prosecution against them could proceed with the President’s sanction. However, the ruling mandated consulting the Chief Justice of India before any criminal cases against judges. Justice Verma dissented, arguing that the PC Act should not apply to judges, suggesting the need for new legislation to address corruption.
Corruption in the Judiciary
The Veeraswami case has become a focal point in discussions about judicial integrity in India. It raises questions about the effectiveness of existing laws in holding judges accountable. The ruling has implications for the independence of the judiciary and the executive’s role in sanctioning prosecutions.
Current Context and Calls for Reform
Vice President Dhankar’s recent comments tell a growing sentiment that the 1991 ruling may have inadvertently contributed to judicial corruption. There are calls for legislative reform to enhance accountability mechanisms within the judiciary, ensuring that judges are not above the law.
| Related | |
|---|---|
