Justice C S Karnan of the Madras High Court seems to be an interesting person. According to various reports, he just didn’t get along well with his brother judges. He was even said to have recently barged into the chamber of the chief justice and given him a mouthful in Tamil, a language which the latter was unaware of.
There are several stories about Karnan which appear apocryphal, but, according to knowledgeable sources, were very true and not at all manufactured. The chief justice felt he had had enough, and on his recommendation, Karnan stands transferred to the Calcutta High Court. Whether he will actually take up his assignment or not is anybody’s guess.
One press report suggests that the judge met the Chief Justice of India a few days ago and apologised for his behaviour. He is supposed to have attributed his unbecoming conduct to a temporary loss of mental equilibrium. Whether he would still report at Calcutta HC and assume office is a matter of speculation. He could spring some surprises, which will add to the entertainment that he has already dished out in abundance to everyone around him.
Revitalising the Collegium System
- Alleged Uncivil behavior of Madras High Court judge, Justice CS Karnan, yet again raises questions on the appointment
method.
- The collegium
system is marked by an element of secrecy, which leads to some bad appointments.
- Appointment of
judges can be made more transparent by making information available on all
candidates public.
- Information in
the public domain will provide larger database for agencies like the IB and CBI
to cross-check the credentials of a particular candidate.
Was Impeachment Called For?
The first question that has been raised by some in the Madras Bar and elsewhere is why Karnan was not impeached. According to them, a mere transfer was a mild punishment and no deterrent to potential misconduct in Calcutta HC. In the police we use this argument to deal with indiscipline and get some intransigent elements out of the force, and not merely shifted to another place. If this was good for the police and the rest of public administration, why not for the judiciary?
There is, however, a problem here. A high court or Supreme Court judge can be removed only through a process of impeachment in Parliament. That is a hugely problem-ridden procedure, given how badly divided our polity is. On a previous occasion when Justice Ramaswami was impeached in 1993, the ruling Congress sheepishly abstained from voting and the motion failed.
This act was not one of love for Ramaswami
but only because the judge had been appointed by the Congress government, and
joining in the motion of impeachment could have embarrassed the party. The
issue also became embroiled in a controversy of regional bias. It assumed a
North vs South colour. Neither the judge nor the Congress emerged in good light
here.
Choosing Candidates
The point is the choice of candidates – both government-initiated and the collegium methods – occasionally leaves much to be desired. There is definitely a process of consultation of various sections. Nevertheless, there is an element of secrecy when a shortlist is arrived at, which leads to some bad appointments.
It is widely known that the Intelligence Bureau does a screening of the candidates sent by the Home Ministry. (In the US, the FBI, which does the work of our IB and CBI, vets all candidates recommended by the president for the Supreme Court and other federal courts before these names go to the Senate for confirmation.) The IB’s check is too cursory for our comfort.
Such an enquiry can at best yield information whether there are any criminal proceedings pending against a candidate. And also some insight into his general reputation. Nothing beyond this. Whether an IB vetting would have revealed any aberration of the kind reported against Karnan is highly doubtful. The candid admission of a former Madras HC judge, Justice P S Misra, that he did not remember how Karnan passed muster with him is an index of the quality of check that exists.
Transparent Appointments System
A record check of the antecedents of a candidates is not sufficient. A personal interview of each candidate by the collegium will reveal a lot more. There needs to be more transparency in the sense that the names of all prospective candidates should be in the public domain so that there are avenues through which information pours in for the collegium.
In India, where public life is so muddied, all kinds of frivolous charges could be made against each candidate. But then this provides the larger database for agencies like the IB and CBI to cross-check and provide to the collegium a fairly comprehensive report on each candidate. This might be an arduous process that consumes a lot of time. This is, however, worth the trouble, if one considers the sensitivity of judicial appointments.
(The writer is a former CBI Director)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)