Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed

Consensus eludes parliamentary panel on judges bill

Recommended Posts


New Delhi, June 14 (IANS) A parliamentary panel Thursday failed to finalise its recommendations on a bill to set up an institutional mechanism to probe corruption charges against judges of the higher judiciary. It will meet again June 26.


After a day-long meeting, E.M.S. Natchiappan, chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice ministry, told IANS: 'We were unable to finalise our recommendations today. We will meet again on June 26.'


The bill, known as the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, seeks to establish a National Judicial Council to probe allegations like corruption and inefficiency against judges of the higher judiciary. The bill was referred to the panel after the law ministry introduced it in the Lok Sabha on Dec 19, 2006.


'We are striving for a consensus recommendation to the government on the issue. We are examining the bill very closely as it's a very sensitive issue,' said Natchiappan.


He hoped the panel report will be submitted to parliament during its monsoon session.


Asked about the reservations among various panel members over provisions of the bill, Natchiappan said: 'It's a very delicate issue. The committee is trying to sort out all differences.'


The bill has been facing severe opposition in the panel on several counts, including a provision - Section 30 - which allows an impeached judge of the Supreme Court or a high court to challenge in the apex court the president's order dismissing him.


Owing to this provision, the members have termed the bill as 'unconstitutional', saying that it cannot be passed without amending the constitution.


Several members, including eminent lawyer and former Law Minister Ram Jethmalani, have repeatedly questioned Section 30.


Jethmalani had earlier told IANS, 'Section 30 is the most foolish provision of the bill.'


The bill is also facing resistance over a provision - Section 33 - that seeks to make an inquiry against a judge by the National Judicial Council confidential and keep the probe out of the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI).


Panel members questioned the rationale of making the enquiry process against a judge confidential, saying even the process of appointment of judges fell within the ambit of the Right to Information Act.


Consensus eludes parliamentary panel on judges bill - India

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • aparna
      By aparna
      As I can see from the Act the principal aim of the act seems to motivate people and encouraging them to have information about the working of the system to see that it works efficiently.
      But it is said that poverty alleviation is also the aim of this act. I cannot forsee how that can be achieved?
      Any views?
    • nirmalbiswas
      By nirmalbiswas
      I beleive in this last 50 years or even more after we have got our independence this is the first time that our Government has sincerely thought of nailing the corrupt officials and has brought this ACT. No doubt the corrupt officials and people in power on the other hand are thinking out ways and means as to how to dilute this act so as not to pass the information regarding the wrong things they do or might do. One of this was not to give information regarding what ever has been dealt on corresponding side before an order has been passed. I beleive we all Government officers who are non corrupt, have nothing to fear from this act and should whole heartedly support this act and make it more stronger.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy