In this episode of Political Stock Exchange, watch the findings of CVoter survey on whether the image of the judiciary has taken a hit after a probe was launched against Delhi High Court judge Justice Varma in the cash haul case.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening and welcome. You're watching the NewsTrack. I'm Rahul Kanwal.
00:03How transparent is the functioning of the judiciary?
00:07How corrupt do citizens think our judges are?
00:11This debate has been raging all through this week.
00:15We'll bring you the results of the sea water PSE data
00:19on how citizens perceive the functioning and the level of corruption in the judiciary
00:24on tonight's edition of the NewsTrack.
00:30Cash scandal quakes judiciary.
00:37Justice Verma faces probe.
00:45Has image of judiciary taken a hit?
00:52Do citizens think courts are corrupt?
00:59First tracker on perception of judiciary.
01:09Political stock exchange.
01:14One of the biggest scandals to hit the Indian judiciary is getting bigger.
01:19Justice Yashwant Verma is set to appear before the Supreme Court appointed probe panel in the Cash Hall case.
01:25Justice Verma has denied charges but at least five bar associations have sought a meeting with the Chief Justice of India.
01:33They want criminal proceedings to be initiated against Justice Yashwant Verma.
01:38Nalli Sharma and Srishti Ojha from our Law Today Bureau with this report.
01:43The probe into the cash recovery at High Court Judge Yashwant Verma's residence is intensifying.
01:55India Today has exclusively learnt that Justice Verma will be appearing before the Supreme Court appointed three member inquiry panel
02:03to answer all questions surrounding the Cash Hall.
02:06On Thursday Delhi Fire Chief deposed before the committee.
02:10Sources say that probe is set to be expedited.
02:14Sources have told India Today that during the first two days of the inquiry
02:20the judges have gathered several photos and videos from the location
02:24as well as photos and videos that were made by the first responders as part of the evidence in the case.
02:29All of this evidence has been handed over to the experts for their analysis.
02:34Sources have also indicated to India Today that help from forensic experts is being taken by the inquiry panel
02:40to adjust the authenticity of the photos and videos that are available to them in the form of this evidence.
02:47Meanwhile the spotlight is also on Justice Yashwant Verma's personal secretary
02:51who allegedly asked Delhi police officials to leave the judge's residence on the night of March 14th after the fire incident.
03:01Heat is mounting on Justice Verma.
03:03Presidents of Bar Associations of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Karnataka and Jabalpur Bench have written to the Chief Justice of India.
03:11They are demanding criminal proceedings against Justice Verma.
03:17We have told the collegium of five judges including the Chief Justice
03:20that one, the transfer order must be withdrawn.
03:22Second, no work must be assigned.
03:24So they clarified that no judicial work is assigned to him
03:27but he has just been transferred to Allahabad High Court.
03:30And third is that the normal processes of investigation must be taken to its logical end
03:37and the criminal law must be set into motion.
03:40And they have assured us that the investigation is on.
03:45The issue is also echoing in the parliament.
03:47Congress MP Manish Tiwari has demanded a response from the law minister.
03:53The Chief Justice of India has appointed an in-house inquiry.
03:57I think we should respect the process.
03:59We should wait for that report.
04:01But in the meanwhile the law minister should come to this house
04:05and the law minister must relate the chronology of events as they have transpired.
04:11What actually transpired? What does the government know?
04:14Why is the government not making a statement about this?
04:17The factum of recovery money from the High Court judge
04:21is really eroding the confidence on judiciary.
04:24Such judges are also public servants like us.
04:27This judge has transferred from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court.
04:31This will not resolve the problem.
04:33These High Courts, Allahabad High Court, Calcutta High Court,
04:36like these courts cannot be the dumping ground.
04:40The cash scandal has also reignited the debate on the NJAC.
04:45But government sources say there is no plan to bring back the act
04:49that was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court anytime soon.
04:54With Nalini Sharma and Srishti Ojha, Bureau Report, India Today.
05:02The judiciary is in the news this week for all the wrong reasons.
05:06What do citizens across the country think of the level of trust
05:11and transparency in the functioning of the judiciary?
05:14To talk about this in this special edition of the Political Stock Exchange,
05:18we have a set of questions around people's perception of the Indian judiciary.
05:24Before I come to my first set of responses,
05:26I want to get you to meet our guests for this broadcast
05:29starting with Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court.
05:32With us in this broadcast is one of India's foremost RTI experts,
05:36Anjali Bhardwaj, Governing Council Member of Common Cause.
05:40We have with us on this broadcast, leading advocate Hitesh Jain.
05:44And I have Mahima Singh from the Congress Party of India.
05:49So let's just get started. I want to take the first question.
05:52Do you trust the judiciary to deliver justice to all Indians?
05:57This was the question and you'll see it in three parts.
06:00You'll see responses amongst India Alliance voters,
06:03you'll see NDA voters and you'll look at overall.
06:06But what I'd broadly be looking at are the overall numbers
06:10because this is one series of questions
06:13where whether you are an India Alliance voter or an NDA voter,
06:16there isn't that much of a difference.
06:18There are marginal differences but not that much.
06:20Naturally India Alliance voters are more distrusting of the judiciary
06:24but by and large they're tending in the same direction.
06:27So overall, 3 out of 10 respondents in this C voter India Today poll
06:33said that they have full trust in the judiciary.
06:35So 3 out of 10 saying full trust.
06:3712% saying trust to a great extent.
06:40So 42% say they have good trust in the judiciary.
06:44Now you've got 22% who say they don't trust at all
06:48and 26% who say they don't trust very much.
06:52That's about 48%, almost half the respondents saying
06:55they have serious trust issues with the judiciary.
06:58Now Sanjay Hegde, this is quite alarming.
07:00Forget the political split between India voters, NDA voters.
07:04Just look at this number.
07:0648% of the voters feel they have trust issues with the judiciary.
07:11That's a big number.
07:13I thought there'd be some kind of a trust problem
07:16especially on the back of what happened with Justice Verma.
07:19But if half the respondents don't trust the judiciary either fully or to a great extent
07:23as a leading light of the bar, how alarmed are you, Mr. Hegde?
07:27Well, I am alarmed and I'm not the only person who is alarmed.
07:32You may recollect that only yesterday Justice Oka said something similar
07:39that we cannot take for granted the fact that the majority of Indian people trust us.
07:49There are several reasons for the lack of trust.
07:53One thing that I can think of right now is that
07:57in the backdrop of what has happened with Justice Verma
08:00and the video that has come out,
08:04it may be that the egos are inflated.
08:08At the end of the day, it is how does the system behave.
08:13And please also look at the fact that
08:17very few people actually end up in the High Court or the Supreme Court.
08:22It is the district judiciary, it is the judiciary at the state level
08:26which is the beginning and the end of most people's encounters with the justice system.
08:33We have a problem at all levels
08:39but we also have a problem where we are not invested enough
08:44in creating judicial infrastructure.
08:47Okay, I think you make an important point.
08:49Just one minute, let me quickly finish.
08:53We have about 15 judges per million where we should have at least had 100.
08:59So what happens is that courts are overcrowded, cannot deliver
09:04and in a sense they are created sick but commanded to be sound.
09:09So you will have these figures.
09:11That's an important point you make. Created sick but commanded to be sound.
09:15Hitesh Jain, 48% saying they have trust issues with the judiciary.
09:21Only one third feel that they trust the judiciary fully.
09:24This is the ultimate institution.
09:26I mean this is the one institution you expect will deliver justice
09:31if you and I are in trouble.
09:32If this is the level of distrust, how alarmed are you by
09:35at this moment the level of distrust that we are seeing among citizens?
09:39Actually these alarming reasons have been there for some time.
09:44According to me, I pick three reasons.
09:46One, delay. Second, access to justice. And third, cost.
09:51Yes, Justice Verma's incident has come.
09:54But I think delay, access to justice and the cost, it's very prohibitive.
10:00And if you look at the structure of the judiciary in this country,
10:03it's like a pyramid-like structure.
10:05You have like 34 judges at the top like the Supreme Court.
10:08You have close to 1900 judges at the high court level.
10:11And you have close to 25,000 judges at the district court level.
10:15Well, if you will see, most of the delay is at level 2 and level 3.
10:19So what was also expected while we focus on different aspects and all,
10:25but there has to be some sort of a supervision,
10:28both over the high court and the district court.
10:31And one should see the quality of the verdicts that is coming,
10:34the kind of adjournments that are happening.
10:36Even in the high court, it is very...
10:38I mean like you see like matters are getting adjourned for months and months.
10:43So I think these are the reasons where people are really concerned
10:49and therefore they have not started, they do not trust the judiciary
10:53and they feel that out-of-court settlement or they use forums
10:58where instead of going to court, they are looking at every other forum.
11:02Sure. So let me, that being said, come to the next question on this broadcast,
11:07which is to do with whether citizens think that the judicial system favors the rich and the powerful.
11:14So when this question was asked,
11:16do you think the rich and the powerful are treated differently from ordinary Indian citizens?
11:21Alarming is that 56% of the overall respondents
11:26cutting across different categories of voter responses,
11:29both India and NDA voters,
11:31say that yes, the rich and the powerful are treated differently.
11:35No is only 18%.
11:38Anjali Bharadwaj, this is the second very alarming response.
11:42It's not the fact that some people think that the rich and the powerful are treated differently.
11:46This is 6 out of 10.
11:48Compounded to this, 48% say they feel distrustful towards the judiciary.
11:54Now those, from anybody's perspective, not just if you're within the legal system,
12:00even if you just look at the legal system from the outside,
12:03that's a very alarming number, Anjali Bharadwaj.
12:06Yes, indeed, Rahul. And I think that both the statistics that you have read out so far
12:13need to be seen together in many ways.
12:17I think the question of judicial delay and judicial corruption
12:22is something that people have been concerned about in the country.
12:27Also, the problem of lack of adequate independence of the judiciary,
12:33especially when the executive at the center is strong.
12:37I think that's also something that a lot of people have been concerned about.
12:42Of course, the recent kind of picture that we saw with notes burning
12:49and those videos that have come out surfaced,
12:52again, it reinforces the fact that only if you have a lot of money
12:58can the judicial system probably respond in a timely and in a favorable way.
13:04I have to say that by and large, people do have faith in our judiciary in the country.
13:11But these problems are very much around.
13:14Even when the Supreme Court judges came out in an unprecedented press conference
13:20and talked about lack of autonomy of the functioning of the court,
13:24the allocation of cases, I think people have seen, they have engaged,
13:29and there is a general feeling that the lack of trust that you talked about
13:36and the fact that the system seems to work really for the rich and the powerful.
13:40Also, look at the kind of issues where we see judicial delays, Rahul.
13:46The electoral bonds case, for example, became something that really captured people's imagination.
13:53People saw that it took nearly seven years for that case to be heard.
13:58There are so many other matters, and of course, people's lived experience,
14:03which Sanjay talked about, that a lot of it is also at the lowest levels of the judiciary,
14:10where tarikh pe tarikh is something that people have really associated with the judicial system.
14:16I just want to also add that the lack of transparency
14:23and the fact that the judicial system seems to be a very, very opaque system
14:31where nobody really gets very much of an idea of what is happening,
14:36whether it is at the stage of appointments of judges or how cases are being allocated,
14:43how many cases are being allocated to a judge, to a bench on any given day,
14:49or it is even the grievance redress, the complaints mechanism,
14:54or even the assets and liabilities of judges.
14:57All of these things, I think, add up to really create a picture for people
15:01where they feel that the judiciary is not all is well.
15:06Building on what Anjali Bharadwaj is saying, I want to come to the next question.
15:10In your opinion, how transparent is the judiciary in India?
15:14This is a very critical insight emerging from the sea water data,
15:19where 34%, one in three respondents say not transparent at all.
15:2640% think only partially transparent.
15:29It is just 17% of the respondents.
15:32And again, as I said, whether you're an NDA voter or an India voter,
15:36it usually isn't like this on almost any other series of questions
15:40where they feel the same way across political affiliations.
15:45But you've got only 17% saying they think the judiciary is completely transparent,
15:4934% saying not transparent at all.
15:52Mahima Singh, this idea that it's a black box,
15:55the points that Anjali Bharadwaj was referring to,
15:58that you don't know who's getting how many cases,
16:00how much money judges make, their assets, their liabilities,
16:03all of that not being addressed and known fully
16:06raises very serious questions of the level of transparency in our judiciary today, Mahima.
16:12Before I come to address the instant question you've just asked,
16:16I would also take into consideration the first two questions that you had asked,
16:21and I am absolutely, you see, in resonance with the voters of this vote,
16:27and so are Justice Oka and Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court.
16:33When they say that the judiciary is, Indian judiciary is in its free fall right now,
16:39and if you please, I would like to take you through two illustrations before I make my point here.
16:45You see, there was one Mr. Balesh Dhankar,
16:48the president of BJP's Overseas Friends organization in Australia,
16:55who's been just convicted for, you know, wrongdoing to some women,
17:01and has been sent to the prison for 40 years.
17:04And here in India, we have one Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh
17:07to file an FIR against him.
17:10It took these Indian wrestlers, women, to approach the Honourable Supreme Court
17:15and get the FIR registered, and he's a re-elected MP here.
17:18So you see, we have to talk about trust, we have to talk about transparency,
17:22we have to talk about budget allocation,
17:24we have to talk about how the state is looking at the judiciary
17:28and how the state is treating judiciary as an institution.
17:32While Honourable Leader of Opposition, Sri Rahul Gandhi,
17:35persistently makes this point in the parliament and elsewhere,
17:39that all the institutions in India, including the judiciary where separation of powers is required,
17:45are under immense pressure, are being influenced by the government.
17:49The same point has been made by the judges today when they are saying that
17:53we are seeing the worst times of the Indian judiciary.
17:56And that is also reflected in your voter data.
18:00Let Hitesh Jain, who was shaking his head vehemently in disagreement,
18:03respond to what you are saying.
18:04Mahima Singh from the Congress Party, Hitesh Jain, making the argument
18:08that it's the government that is interfering in the functioning of the judiciary,
18:12which is why judges aren't being able to do their job.
18:15Mahima, I'll come back to you for a follow-up in just a moment.
18:17Let Hitesh Jain complete his argument.
18:19Hitesh, go on.
18:20Rahul, we are discussing serious issues.
18:23This is not about BJP or Congress.
18:25So if you really want to address the problem,
18:27first we have to get out of this BJP-Congress every time on all the matters.
18:31As your survey shows, both the NDA voters and India voters,
18:35there is no difference in what they are thinking.
18:37So the common public is aligned.
18:39It is netas in the studio who like to look at from the prism of politics.
18:43I'm surprised civil activists like Anjali Bharadwaj also picks up one case.
18:48But let me give you a data where the problems are.
18:51You know, 40% of cases are land-related eviction matters and all.
18:55You want to take a possession of your house, the landlord-tenant matters,
18:59which goes into 20 years.
19:00Simple things like motor accident claim.
19:03Like you get an accident, people have died or people have suffered injuries and all.
19:07Look at the data.
19:08I mean, one should look at the judgments that have been delivered by Justice Karol.
19:13So before he gives the judgment, he gives three columns.
19:16One, time taken in the trial court.
19:18Second, time taken in the high court.
19:20Third, time taken in the Supreme Court.
19:22Now that data will tell you like motor accident claims for Rs. 40,000, Rs. 50,000, Rs. 1 lakh.
19:29You have filed the cases in 1990 and they are languishing in 2020.
19:34It is these cases where the common man is concerned, where there is a delay.
19:39That is where the problem is.
19:41Now, bail-related matters are concerned.
19:43They are talking about under trial.
19:45You know, we try to look at the political cases and all.
19:48But look at the common man.
19:49Common man was not concerned with how much time electoral case was taking.
19:54Common man is thinking whether I am going to get my possession, whether I am going to get my bail.
19:59There are under trials who are languishing in the jail.
20:02So look at the quality of the verdicts and all.
20:05It is this matter where common man is suffering.
20:08You're saying it's cases that concern the common man,
20:11which really shape perception about the judiciary and the likes of Mahima Singh.
20:16I am going to give her an opportunity to respond.
20:18I am unnecessarily looking at this from a political prism.
20:21It's an institutional concern that needs to be looked at more seriously.
20:25Let Mahima respond to that.
20:27The common man is also looking at Rahul.
20:29Why does a Ram Rahim get a parole every time there is an election?
20:33Why is the BJP government in Haryana not opposing his parole?
20:37The common public also looks at the budget that is allocated by the governments
20:43for the respective judiciary institutions in states and by the union.
20:47Let me tell you, by the way, that Telangana today has the highest spending per capita,
20:53that is 3047 per capita.
20:56What are the other states doing about it?
20:59Why is the union government not increasing the budget allocation on the institution judiciary?
21:04Why is the government not doing enough to cast away the aspersions
21:09that are constantly overshadowing the judiciary about its pressure?
21:14You remember the Chandigarh mayor case?
21:16The judge who adjudicated that matter was transferred.
21:20You remember so many other cases where the judges...
21:24And let me tell you, in the last 11 years,
21:26this trust deficit in Indian judiciary can be summed between two names.
21:31Two names, that is Justice Loya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
21:35Let me leave it at that for now.
21:37Okay, you are taking this in a very political direction
21:40and talking only about what happened in 11 years.
21:43Sanjay Hegde, is that even fair?
21:45Because these issues with the judiciary have been building up for a while.
21:49To now just look at it as a NDA versus UPA prism,
21:53is Mahima Singh being fair or is she debasing this debate
21:57and really not looking at the structural questions and challenges as Hitesh Jain says we need to focus on?
22:03Well, I think neither Mahima nor Hitesh will like what I say.
22:07I think that the current government is only doing a bad version
22:13of what the Congress did so many years ago in the 1970s.
22:18So, it's like that.
22:20Whenever there is a powerful government,
22:22they want a judiciary made to measure.
22:25That's a phrase from Mr. Palkiwala.
22:28They want their people appointed.
22:31They do not want any people appointed
22:35who are likely to go against their philosophy
22:38or against their interests.
22:41So, we do not...
22:44and this is where the question of the independence of the judiciary comes up.
22:49We need fiercely independent people
22:55who keep their party positions aside.
22:58But most of the recommendations in the way that the judicial appointments happen
23:03are done by judges themselves.
23:05So, then you are blaming the government for picking the judges
23:08and filling it with its own people.
23:09At this moment, judicial appointments happen through the judiciary.
23:13Well, equally any judge whom the government doesn't approve of
23:20doesn't get appointed.
23:22You have Sourav Kirpal, you have John Satyan,
23:24you have a whole host of people.
23:26Yeah, but it's not like they can stuff it with their people.
23:28But Sanjay, the argument you made was the government stuffing the judiciary
23:31with its own judges.
23:32That's not true because the base recommendation comes from within the judicial system.
23:36Yes, but the judiciary is told that unless you give us recommendations
23:41that we agree with, those appointments will not go through.
23:45Let Hitesh Jain respond that the government is trying to stuff the judiciary
23:48with people who are sympathetic to its cause
23:50which is one of the reasons why the quality of judges
23:54and the quality of belief that people have in our judges is falling.
23:58Hitesh.
23:59Well, actually, polarized debate cannot yield any solution
24:03because I am looking at this purely from the problem of the institution
24:08and purely as a lawyer, someone who has appeared for the last 30 years
24:12in the trial court and all.
24:14So, that experience I am sharing.
24:16So, the first thing if you really want to improve the institution
24:19we have to rise over this polarized business of this is right and this is wrong
24:23because in the last 30 years, it is the collegium system that has taken the control.
24:28If that is the case, these are the same people they challenge the NJSC.
24:31I mean, one could have supported the reform.
24:34Somebody could have supported NJSC with the proper reforms or with some suggestions and all.
24:40So, you don't want NJSC.
24:42You want collegium.
24:43Then you blame the government.
24:45It is the collegium that is appointing.
24:47And I will tell you there is the answer.
24:49Suppose today it is a collegium system set up by the Supreme Court
24:53and if you are saying collegium is picking up the government appointee
24:56then this is a clear evidence that the collegium system has been failed
24:59and this has to be replaced.
25:01Now, the same set of contrarians, they support the collegium system.
25:05So, I fail to understand what do they want.
25:07I mean, when a system has failed like as I mentioned to you Supreme Court and High Court
25:12you are talking about 34 and 1900 judges.
25:15At the base of the pyramid, district court, there are 25,000 judges.
25:19Now, all these people are not political appointees.
25:22It is that 25,000 at that pyramid where it is taking 50,000.
25:26So, let me take the questions that we have on the collegium
25:30and on how judges should be appointed
25:34and whether parliament and whether government should have a role.
25:37So, let's take it.
25:40In your opinion, should only a collegium of Supreme Court judges
25:44appoint judges to the High Court and the Supreme Court?
25:47What do voters think?
25:4844% say yes, only a collegium of judges should appoint judges.
25:54They don't trust government or parliament getting involved.
25:5723% say no.
25:5833% which is a very big number are actually confused.
26:01It is ultimately a technical issue in terms of appointments of judges.
26:04So, one third don't have an opinion.
26:06But 44% say only a collegium should have a role in appointment of judges.
26:12Now, you know the fact is it may be imperfect, it may be imprecise,
26:18it may have problems Anjali Bhardwaj.
26:20But 44% of the respondents say let's not get anybody else
26:24and definitely not the government involved in this.
26:27There seems to be more faith for good or for bad in what judges would do
26:32than have political appointees trying to take decisions.
26:35Anjali?
26:36I think Rahul that is very very understandable.
26:39Also, if one were to recognize the fact that a very large majority of the cases
26:47in the courts do involve the government in one way or another.
26:52So, I think that there is a very strong recognition from people
26:55that the independence of the judiciary in a democracy is of utmost importance
27:01and finally the judiciary has to have people's back.
27:06It has to make sure that whenever there is any violation of our fundamental rights,
27:11our constitutional rights, that the judiciary will function in an independent manner.
27:16Having said that Rahul and again over here,
27:19I want to bring back your transparency question
27:22because I think that it's that's at the heart of all of this.
27:26Look, we do understand that independence of the judiciary is extremely important
27:32but the problem has been that very often in the garb of
27:37and on the pretext of independence of judiciary,
27:41we have seen that the judiciary has been trying to hide behind a veil of secrecy
27:47where we find that judges have been saying that because we need to be independent,
27:53we are a very special entity.
27:55Therefore, we don't want to be transparent
27:58and I think at the root of the problem of trust,
28:01at the root of the problem that we are discussing in terms of even appointments
28:06is the lack of transparency.
28:08Now, what is the transparency framework in our country?
28:11It's really governed by the Right to Information Act
28:14and Rahul, you would know that the Supreme Court of India,
28:19the judiciary of India has been one of the biggest champions
28:22of the Right to Information and the Right to Information Act
28:25and yet when people have asked questions from the judiciary under the RTI law,
28:31people have really not been given information.
28:35There have been so many questions that have been asked about the collegium process.
28:40There has been, I am part of the campaign for judicial accountability and reforms.
28:46There has been a consistent demand to say that
28:49please make the appointment process transparent
28:52and here Rahul, I want to really tell your viewers
28:56that it is extremely important to really address the root causes of problems
29:01if we want to keep jumping from one system to another
29:05in the hope that everything will go well,
29:07nothing will change if we go from the collegium to NJAC,
29:12we need transparency.
29:14I think you make a very good point and I want to put that to Sanjay Hegde.
29:17The fact that judges expect high standards from citizens or from government
29:23but don't hold themselves to those high standards of transparency, of accountability.
29:29They have an opinion on everyone else without following high standards themselves, Sanjay Hegde.
29:35Well essentially you are putting the bible to me, judge not lest he be judged.
29:41So that is part of the problem.
29:44Judges do not drop in from the heavens.
29:47Judges have to, to the maximum extent possible,
29:53be transparent and their working should be in a transparent manner.
30:00I do think that the judiciary would be well served
30:04if it had experienced communications professionals to explain things.
30:11The recent example is when the collegium recommendation was
30:15as to whether Justice Verma had been transferred or not.
30:18That was not readable to the layman.
30:21So yes, there has to be transparency, there has to be clarity
30:27but there are certain things which you can't be transparent about.
30:33Many of these RTI applications sometimes are
30:37please let us have access to the judge's notes,
30:40please let us have access to this, that, various things.
30:44So there is a certain amount of balancing act
30:47and the judges themselves went to the judiciary on the judicial side
30:55when there was an order of the Delhi High Court
30:58saying that you have to disclose your assets
31:01and it is to the credit of the judges when they examined it
31:04on a legal perspective they said yes.
31:07But Hitesh Jain respond to that question about the collegium
31:11because you are arguing in favour of the National Judicial Appointments Commission
31:15where the government also has a role in picking judges
31:18but if you look at the responses in the voter, from the citizens
31:22they are saying no matter how good or bad
31:25we would much rather trust the judges to do this job
31:27much more than we trust the government.
31:29Yes, and you know why?
31:31Just one minute, Hitesh just one minute.
31:35One by one Sanjay, let Hitesh speak.
31:38No, just one quick answer.
31:40If you will look at the survey also
31:4223% of the people are not decided
31:45and 23% are not supporting the collegium.
31:49So you have as high as 56% basically who are not supporting
31:53the categorical answer of collegium.
31:56Now as we have discussed, look at the different panelists
31:59from where you come.
32:00Ultimately you are saying on the quality of the appointment
32:03ultimately they are saying some appointments
32:05these are all like government appointments.
32:07Third, we are expecting that there is a lot of delay.
32:10Fourth, there is an acceptance that the system has failed.
32:13Now when the system has failed, when there is a delay
32:16when people do not have faith in the appointment of judges
32:19do we do the same thing and arrive at the same result
32:22or we have to change the track and think differently?
32:25See we had a system that was working till 1980.
32:28Then thereafter this judges case, the judgment started
32:31and the collegium over the last three decades
32:34we have seen the collegium system that is coming.
32:36Now everybody is complaining about the collegium system.
32:39Now I think instead of being rigid
32:41we should allow a new system to also.
32:43That can be, we can all, I mean this is something
32:46where there has to be consensus.
32:48I strongly believe this is not about BJP, Congress
32:51or India Alliance or NDA.
32:53It is about the country, it is about the judiciary.
32:55Sanjay Hegde wanted to make a quick count on the issue
32:58of who should pick judges. Sanjay Hegde.
33:00See NJSC was supported both by the Congress as well as the BJP.
33:06Every set of politicians wants to have a control
33:10over judicial appointments.
33:12Now my respectful answer as far as the collegium is concerned
33:16is it's like a cricket team being selected by cricketers
33:21and not by the state associations which are political bodies.
33:26Otherwise you will have Rajiv Shukla and some of the other BJP people
33:32who are in the BCCI together getting in to saying
33:35two of yours, two of mine.
33:37Let people of law select those who will judge them.
33:42No, no, but it's not that simple, a binary either Sanjay Hegde.
33:45The fact is there is a lot of bhai bati dawad, judges picking judges,
33:49judges picking people they know.
33:51You scratch my back, I scratch your back.
33:53It's not as if these judges are doing a spectacular job.
33:56So of course there are very serious reservations
33:58in governments getting involved.
34:00But it's not as if the judges are doing a fabulous job either.
34:03They have, are you asking me?
34:07No, just one second. Let Sanjay Hegde complete.
34:09I am going back to you Hitesh in a moment.
34:11Well, let me put it this way.
34:15They have done a reasonable job.
34:18And it's not as if when there was a period of government appointments,
34:24we did not have brilliant judges coming out of that.
34:27Justice Krishnayar was appointed by the government of the day.
34:30So was Justice Chinna Pareti.
34:32It's only when Mr. Ramjit Malani said that there are two kinds of judges,
34:36those who know the law and those who know the law minister.
34:39It was a reference to the late Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj.
34:43It is at that stage that the judiciary took upon itself the idea that,
34:48you know, that consultation means concurrence
34:52and then the collegium system came in and that system has been working.
34:55There have been aberrations.
34:57See, as far as selection is concerned,
35:00you may not necessarily select the best of the best,
35:03but you select with some minimum standards.
35:06If you just leave it to an outside agency or abdicate it to the executive,
35:11then there may be no standards whatsoever.
35:13But that's not what the idea was.
35:15The idea was never that only the government will pick.
35:17There will still be judges, including the Chief Justice in the committee that decides.
35:20Hitesh Jain wants to make an argument.
35:23Rahul, now look at the qualification for appointment of judges in the Constitution
35:28for the High Court and the Supreme Court.
35:30It has prescribed the qualification of minimum 10 years of practice in the High Court.
35:34Like 10 years as a judge.
35:37Now, you know, at what age they appoint the judges in the High Court?
35:40The unwritten rule is 45 to 48.
35:43In Supreme Court, when are they appointing?
35:45Between 55 and 59.
35:47What is the retirement age of the High Court judge?
35:5062.
35:51What is the retirement age of the Supreme Court judge?
35:5465.
35:55Where have you arrived that a High Court judge has to be appointed only at the age of 45 to 48?
36:00Where have you got the criteria that only in Supreme Court,
36:04if you are going to be 55 and 58,
36:06the Constitution never provided the criteria.
36:09The Constitution only provided minimum experience.
36:12Now, if you have rulers of the countries in different,
36:15I mean, world across you will see there are leaders who have come at 40, 45.
36:20I mean, you look at Rajiv Gandhi, he was the Prime Minister at the age of 40.
36:24Now, if you can be a Prime Minister at the age of 40,
36:27then like, you know, this is the problem with the collegium
36:30where they have devised their own set of rules.
36:32They have put their age limits.
36:34They do not follow the Constitution.
36:36And that is what the problem comes.
36:38So, I want to also move the needle and keep coming back to the data and put that on our screen.
36:44In your opinion, to what extent is the Indian judiciary played by corruption?
36:50This really is the nub of the current debate.
36:52Let's see how respondents view this question.
36:55How corrupt is the judiciary?
36:57A lot say 48% of the respondents.
37:01Now, that's quite shocking.
37:02Half the respondents in this seawater survey telling the surveyors
37:08that they think the judiciary is deeply plagued by corruption.
37:1237% saying to some extent, which means they feel judiciary is corrupt to some extent.
37:18Not at all is only 8%.
37:20Only 8% think that the judiciary is the way it should be.
37:239% say they don't know, can't say.
37:25If you add these up, it's 85% of the total respondents who say
37:32that they think that the judiciary is either very corrupt or corrupt to some extent.
37:37Now, that is a very big number.
37:398 out of 10 plus respondents, Anjali Bhardwaj, in this seawater study say
37:45they think the judiciary is either very deeply plagued by corruption
37:49or to some extent plagued by corruption.
37:53Absolutely, Rahul.
37:55And I think that this is really at the heart of how people perceive the judiciary.
38:02We know that in our country, there is corruption.
38:06Judicial corruption is also very widely recognized.
38:09Now, the problem here is, like I said, that the mechanisms for filing complaints
38:18in the judiciary related to judges is really not a citizen-friendly mechanism.
38:27The way in which the complaints that are filed are dealt with is completely opaque.
38:34Now, in this particular case of Justice Verma, which has played itself out right now,
38:39I think there is a recognition and people are extremely happy to note
38:43that there is some information coming out.
38:46The Chief Justice of India has put out information on what the complaint was,
38:51what some of the findings so far have been, what the response of Justice Verma has been,
38:56and also the video and other kinds of information.
38:59But otherwise, if you see, even when complaints are made,
39:04those complaints are not sort of, there's no transparency in the way they are dealt
39:09to the point that very often even a report is not shared with the complainant.
39:14Now, if you remember in the Justice Gogoi case, that was of course not corruption,
39:18but the judge sat as a judge in his own case, and the in-house report that finally came
39:26was not even shared with the complainant.
39:28And that is somehow also true when there are complaints of corruption.
39:31We all know that an FIR can't be filed against a judge unless there is a sanction
39:37that is obtained from the Chief Justice.
39:40Now, in a situation like this, I think there is a deep understanding that corruption is happening,
39:45and of course it's happening at different levels in our country,
39:48but the system seems to be totally broken to take care of it.
39:51Now, Rahul, let me say one more thing.
39:54I would urge you to go to the Delhi High Court website and click on the Assets and Liability button,
40:02and over there, please click on Justice Verma's Assets and Liabilities
40:07and show to our viewers what you see.
40:09Essentially, the Assets and Liabilities of judges is a must-have for citizens
40:15to be able to have trust that there is no judicial corruption.
40:19No, but if he's got all this cash lying around, the assets are not declared assets.
40:24Let me finish, Rahul. Assets and Liabilities, if we have information,
40:28we will know whether their assets are proportionate to their known sources of income.
40:34Now, if you go and click on that button, you will see that Justice Verma's Assets and Liabilities
40:41are basically a dummy PDF, because the judges in our country have decided
40:47that they will decide whether they voluntarily want to declare their Assets and Liabilities or not.
40:52So, look, how do you contain corruption?
40:55I'm not saying that if Assets and Liabilities are out there, there will be no corruption,
40:59but how do you make judges accountable?
41:02There has to be transparency.
41:04Unfortunately, what people are really beginning to understand is that, yes, there is judicial corruption.
41:10There is no adequate system for tackling that corruption, and everything is somehow a secret.
41:18So, if you say anything, it becomes contempt of court.
41:21And most of the time, even when complaints are made, nobody gets to know what happened.
41:26So, there'll be something that one might hear for a short while in the media,
41:30and then no information at all.
41:32And that's where I think that this Justice Verma case, Hitesh, becomes of paramount importance.
41:37If they paper over all the allegations and somehow they rebuke him privately,
41:43but don't do anything publicly, it'll very deeply erode whatever little faith people have left in the judicial system.
41:51Because here's a man who's been caught with his hand in the tail, who's got cash lying around at home.
41:55If no action is taken against him, it completely erodes public faith in the judiciary.
42:00Rahul, two facts. I agree that some action needs to be taken.
42:04This is what will come out as a part of the inquiry.
42:08But, you know, where people were concerned from 2014 to 2019,
42:12there was absolutely lack of any transparency or knowledge as to what was transpiring.
42:17This was an incident dating back on 2014.
42:20And for five days, there was absolute silence.
42:23And that is what made people worried and people were asking the questions.
42:28Unfortunately, what happens is in this country, we just use this platitude,
42:32Oh, independence of judiciary and all.
42:35Now, I think independence of judiciary cannot be self-proclaimed.
42:39It has to be earned by public trust.
42:41And how do you handle a particular situation?
42:44Now, this was a classic case. For five days, there was no information at all.
42:48I mean, on the sixth day, something comes.
42:50I mean, transparency cannot be like any concession.
42:54Transparency cannot be concession. It is a duty.
42:57There has to be a proper manner. There has to be a proper process.
43:00And that is where the concerns of people are coming.
43:03And therefore, you have a high number of percentage of people who are complaining about the corruption in judiciary.
43:08You make an important point.
43:11The absence of information and the fact that Mahima Singh,
43:16exemplary action needs to be taken for citizens to have some modicum of faith
43:23that if a judge gets caught as being corrupt, having unexplained cash lying around,
43:28he can't just get away with it. You can't just get transferred back to your parent's cottage
43:32and after a while get on with the business of making judgments.
43:36If you have been caught, you have been caught and need to be punished.
43:40Now, my plight, Rahul, on your show is that if I speak politics, I'm accused of speaking politics
43:46when I'm called on your show as a political spokesperson.
43:49So irrespective of... You've only been speaking politics, so please go on.
43:53It's too late in the day to change that now.
43:55And yet accused by a fellow panelist of politicizing it.
44:00But I still continue to do it because I need to suffice my duty here.
44:04Let me just say that you compare two manifestos of the BJP and the Congress Party
44:10of this last general election.
44:13And let me tell you what judicial reforms we talk about.
44:16And my source is one of your India Today reports only, where you have established
44:21the BJP Sankalp Patra speaks about one nation, one election, UCC,
44:25reforms in civil procedure and national litigation policy.
44:29And the Nyaya Patra of the Congress, Yusuf purports that we shall bring
44:34National Judicial Commission for appointment of judges.
44:37We shall address the shortage of judges and fill the vacancies in three years.
44:42We shall bring more diversity and inclusivity, more women SCs, STs, OBCs in the judiciary.
44:47We shall allocate more funds to the judiciary, augment physical and technical...
44:51No, no, but those are rhetorical arguments we're asking.
44:54This is not for you to explain your Sankalp Patra, ma'am, with respect.
44:58Ma'am, you're speaking for very long. We're trying to filibuster.
45:02And you're giving us your Sankalp Patra which frankly is not linked to this debate.
45:06I'm out of time. I have only time left enough to be able to take you through the last question
45:11which is about National Judicial Appointments Commission.
45:14Should the NJAC Act be passed again?
45:18Everybody has his own view, especially those in the legal system.
45:22What do the citizens of India think?
45:2539%, that's almost 4 in 10 say yes, NJAC should come back.
45:28That's a fairly high level of approval.
45:3018% say no, NJAC should not come back.
45:33But the big number there is 44% who say we don't know, we can't say.
45:37It's a nuanced technical issue which has massive ramifications, Sanjay Hegde.
45:44But frankly the biggest number there is 44% who say they don't know, can't say.
45:48But the second big number is 39% who say yes, bring NJAC back.
45:54Well that 39% might include a lot of the judiciary themselves.
45:58Because there have been many judges including those who are on the NJAC bench
46:04who had their doubts about the ultimate relief.
46:07You must remember that Justice Chalameshwar dissented from the NJAC judgment.
46:12There is also a feeling within the judiciary that we get blamed for the appointments.
46:19Let the government send whoever they want and then we will train them.
46:24That may be a view.
46:26But yes, we have had experiences of strong governments.
46:31We would like the elite of the profession to voluntarily take up service.
46:40A judge's job is of service.
46:42A judge's job is where you have to live like a monk and work like a horse.
46:48And we do respect them for some of the sacrifices that many of them have done.
46:54We do not want to tire everybody with the same brush.
46:58It may be that a modified NJAC which is not executive heavy or executive friendly
47:06may pass judicial muster but that's a thing in the future.
47:10Okay, Hitesh, very quickly, final words.
47:1360 to 65% of the judges who come to the High Court and the Supreme Court
47:18they come from the trial court.
47:19If we can have an exam on the lines of All India Judicial Services
47:23from where the bulk of the judges in the pyramid can be appointed
47:27I think I'm sure we'll get a better quality of the judges.
47:30I mean NJAC or no NJAC.
47:32My personal view is it is the trial court where the common man is suffering
47:37and that is where the quality of the judges has to get better.
47:40Even Justice Oak yesterday spoke about the improvement of the judges at the trial court
47:45and we have to address this systemic rot that is happening at the base of the pyramid.
47:50Okay, here's what I wish to say in the end.
47:52A lot of what we've discussed during this edition of the Political Stock Exchange
47:57brings out in all its gory what people think is wrong with the judiciary
48:02and frankly there's a lot that's wrong as well.
48:04But to tarnish everyone and to say all judges are corrupt
48:09that would be deeply unfair.
48:11So as you frame this argument in your mind
48:14do keep in mind the fact that yes, it's quite clear some judges are corrupt
48:19and they may have cash lying around in their outhouses
48:21which is terrible and they need to be punished very strongly and sternly for it.
48:25But there are many who just do an honest stage job
48:28and it's all kinds of people together who make up the profession as they make up all professions.
48:32And therefore bear that in mind before you just try and come to the conclusion
48:37that all judges are corrupt because that would not really be fair at all.
48:41That being said, I want to thank all our guests for joining us on this broadcast.
48:45Hitesh Jain, thank you so much.
48:47Thanks also to Sanjay Hegde, Anjali Bhardwaj and Mahima Singh for joining me on this edition of the PSE.
48:55It's the opposition versus the Modi government over the Waqf bill
48:59After Lalu Yadav joined an anti-Waqf protest
49:02MK Stalin has joined the chorus against the upcoming bill.
49:05The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister says that the Waqf bill severely harms the rights of the Muslim community.
49:17Cornered and divided after three successive assembly election defeats
49:21in Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi
49:23the India bloc has finally got an issue to regroup.
49:30The rivals of the BJP are becoming vocal in their opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024.
49:39The Tamil Nadu Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution against the proposed amendments to the Waqf Act.
49:46The Tamil Nadu Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution against the proposed amendments to the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024.
49:53The Tamil Nadu Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution against the proposed amendments to the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024.
50:05Chief Minister MK Stalin called the bill a direct threat to the rights of minorities and the powers of the Waqf Board.
50:11Chief Minister MK Stalin called the bill a direct threat to the rights of minorities and the powers of the Waqf Board.
50:28Even the AIA DMK which is in alliance talks with the BJP backed the resolution.
50:33Even the AIA DMK which is in alliance talks with the BJP backed the resolution.
50:38The BJP walked out of the assembly when the resolution was put to vote.
50:57Many opposition parties have thrown their weight behind the protests
51:00being held by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
51:03RJD leaders Lalu Yadav and Tejasvi Yadav attended the protest held by the Muslim body in Patna on Wednesday.
51:11The BJP called the protests an act of blackmail.
51:41The BJP called the protests an act of blackmail.
51:46The BJP called the protests an act of blackmail.
52:12The Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Waqf Act 1995 to change the way Waqf properties are managed in the country.
52:18The Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Waqf Act 1995 to change the way Waqf properties are managed in the country.
52:27With Pramod Madhav, Bureau Report, India Today.
52:41Hard at work trying to look at the impact of all that's been happening in the Tamil Nadu political battlefield.
52:46So do stay tuned for that tomorrow evening at 8pm.
52:49For the time being, for your time and your trust, thank you.
52:52Goodbye, goodnight.