Newspapers dated 21st April highlight incidence of corruption in judiciary.
Relatives of a former Chief Justice of India amassed wealth during his occupation of the highest judicial post in the country. Ofcourse everyone knows this already. It is unfortunate that no action is taken or even contemplated against him.
The other report refers to a judgement of the Madras High Court. An advocate had sought to get information on the number of complaints received by the Vigilance department between 2001 and 2010 against judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. In January 2012, the Tamilnadu Informationn Commission directed the court's Registrar General to furnish this information. This order has now been set aside by the High Court.
Reasons? The High Court says, 1) If the information is provided, it will adversely impact the normal, regular and 'serene' functioning of the court on the administrative side, 2) the information sought pertains to the internal delicate functioning of the High Court and related to invasion of privacy of respective individuals, 3) the information asked for has no relationship to any public interest and 4) if the information is provided, it would open the floodgates to many more applications.
Is the High Court saying, "We have a sacred right to be corrupt; who are you to seek information?"
Relatives of a former Chief Justice of India amassed wealth during his occupation of the highest judicial post in the country. Ofcourse everyone knows this already. It is unfortunate that no action is taken or even contemplated against him.
The other report refers to a judgement of the Madras High Court. An advocate had sought to get information on the number of complaints received by the Vigilance department between 2001 and 2010 against judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. In January 2012, the Tamilnadu Informationn Commission directed the court's Registrar General to furnish this information. This order has now been set aside by the High Court.
Reasons? The High Court says, 1) If the information is provided, it will adversely impact the normal, regular and 'serene' functioning of the court on the administrative side, 2) the information sought pertains to the internal delicate functioning of the High Court and related to invasion of privacy of respective individuals, 3) the information asked for has no relationship to any public interest and 4) if the information is provided, it would open the floodgates to many more applications.
Is the High Court saying, "We have a sacred right to be corrupt; who are you to seek information?"
No comments:
Post a Comment