Judges' lapses.

Byline: A.G. Noorani

'LORD Woolf cannot quite make up his mind whether he is a liberal reformer or the shop steward for the only trade union in the country whose members wear wigs and not hardhats or cloth caps,' The Times (London) remarked in 2004 of the lord chief justice. If such a comment were made in India, judges would be foaming at the mouth.

It is, however, true that they have been operating as trade unionists whenever their own interests and powers are involved. Take the case of chief justice Ranjan Gogoi. He was accused of sexual harassment by a supreme court staffer shortly before his retirement last year. His reaction was bizarre, reflecting sheer panic.

He set up a special three-member bench to address the issue. Worse still, he presided over this bench, shamelessly flouting the age-old maxim that no man shall be judge in his own cause. He presided over a special sitting of the bench on a court holiday. He alleged a conspiracy to destabilise the institution itself.

No man shall be judge in his own cause.

Thereafter, an 'in-house panel' - an animal unknown to the law - was set up to probe the matter and whether an inquiry was called for. The complainant was denied the services of a lawyer. She walked out of the inquiry that was so obviously and shamefully a farce; a kangaroo court. To no one's surprise, this bogus panel exonerated Gogoi. She was suspended, but reinstated not long after his retirement.

The point is simple. Sexual harassment is a criminal offence under the law. The proper course was a police complaint, an FIR, a thorough probe and, if a prima facie case is revealed, a prosecution in a court of law. The in-house panel has no statutory backing. But the court has gone further.

In a case involving a judge of the Madras High Court, K. Veeraswami, accused of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the court ruled that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 of CrPC against a judge of the higher and superior judiciary, unless the chief justice is consulted, whose views must be given due regard by the government. If he does not think the case is fit to proceed, it shall not be registered.

'If the chief justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received, the Agovernment shall consult any other judge or judges of the supreme court. There shall be similar consultation at the stage of examining the question of granting Asanction for...