The judiciary’s reputation is at stake
Any loss of confidence in the bipartisan nature of court procedures will sully its reputation
When we hear that a retired high court judge along with five others with corrupt motives attempted to influence court proceedings in relation to admissions to a medical college, it did not surprise us. That rampant corruption bedevils medical college admissions is public knowledge. The system of surprise inspections breeds corruption. If one surprise inspection finds the college compliant, the next one for the same academic year will find it non-compliant. Both results cannot be right. Yet the court never asks that question. No attempt was ever made by a court to ascertain which of the inspection results was vitiated for corrupt reasons. The court seldom questions the integrity of the Medical Council of India (MCI). It seems to have implicit faith in the MCI’S inspection that finds the college non-compliant.
The MCI, an elected body, is charged with the responsibility to nominate persons to conduct these inspections. There is a pattern to individuals nominated for these inspections. The Supreme Court-appointed Justice RM Lodha panel on medical educa- tion said the same individual will not be allowed more than three inspections. In a letter to the health ministry, the committee noted with regret that in breach of this direction, MCI entrusted between 20 and as many as 68 assessments to 37 assessors between January 1, 2015 and January 31, 2017.
Allegations were rife that a chosen few were repeatedly nominated and that too from a particular state. The MCI’S claim that nominees are randomly chosen has no legs to stand on. Yet, the court has more often than not chosen to ignore these allegations. Such was the opposition of the MCI to the directions of the Lodha Committee that the panel was substituted on the ground that its term had expired. The rot that was sought to be dealt with by Justice Lodha continues unabated.
The court neither has the time nor is it the appropriate forum to deal with contentious issues of fact. When high courts grant interim relief to institutions, the Supreme Court expresses its displeasure, staying such orders. The result is that the Supreme Court becomes the arbiter in such factually contentious matters. Relief is ultimately a matter of discretion given the urgency of the timelines within which it is required to be granted. This situation that the Supreme Court is confronted with, year after year, helps unscrupulous elements to exploit the desire for institutions’ desperate for relief.
That a retired high court judge is accused of corruption has two implications. First, that for the one allegedly caught there may be many more who manage to go scot free. There is no effective mechanism that allows for an unbiased investigation into allegations made against a sitting or a retired member of the higher judiciary. The executive is loathe to make such an allegation even if they so suspect. Acts of corruption are always played out behind closed doors. Hard evidence is not easy to unearth. Telephone conversations are no proof and names mentioned in a diary is no evidence. Such is the law laid down by our court. Besides, both investigation and prosecution requires the prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India.
Otherwise the independence of the judiciary will be in jeopardy. With this state of the law corruption in higher judiciary will never surface, except as a collateral accident. The judiciary must reflect and come up with a workable solution.
Second, is the flawed and non-transparent process of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. The collegium has not worked and its effectiveness is further imperiled by the Quddusi episode (the Central Bureau of Investigation arrested former Orissa HC Judge IM Quddusi and four others in a medicial college bribery case). There must be a more effective, alternative way forward in making judicial appointments.
There are other serious issues that need to be addressed. While no one doubts the primacy of the chief justice in the assignment of matters to benches of the court, such exercise of power must not arouse suspicion. Assignment of certain kinds of matters to particular benches does legitimately raise eyebrows.
The sudden listing of matters at the instance of individuals without following established norms is cause for concern. After all, the chief justice when listing matters exercises administrative powers. This must be done within the framework of settled norms. It is for the court to protect itself from situations which embarrass both the institution and individuals. Any loss of confidence in the bipartisan nature of the court procedures sullies the reputation of an institution which should be proud of its legacy. That legacy must be preserved at any cost both from within and without.