NDTV: Good evening and welcome to NDTV Dialogues, a conversation of ideas on issues that really matter in India today. Tonight we look at the idea of justice. The Judiciary an integral pillar of Indian democracy but also in an increasing focus with landmark judgments. Joining me tonight are a panel of finest judicial and legal minds - retired Justice Raveendran, retired Justice AP Shah, Mr Soli Sorabjee and Prashant Bhushan. Thank you all very much for coming tonight
Justice Raveendran, the focus really has been very much on the judiciary and the executive interface. Given the two recent judgments, one of course on disqualifying politicians from office and also regarding RTI on parties has come up though the CIC as well. These are issues again which should have been looked as judicial issues, where issues of other pillars of democracy are standing up where the executive isn't. Do you think that's a correct interpretation?
Justice Raveendran: Well it is, but the idea of justice is very broad and it varies from person to person. Perceptions also vary. In fact the good old Aristotelian definition is giving every person his due, whether it may be a penalty and it may be a punishment or it may be his entitlement. But we are not talking about global justice or we are not talking about social justice. Here we are talking about justice with reference to judges and judiciary. Now the problem is people have a perception that ju stice means it is truth, it is fairness and it is equality. It is all good things. But they forget that justice what we render in courts is not justice according to morality, but justice according to law. Therefore, many a time we may be doing justice, which people may not perceive as justice and vice versa. In these cases, which you refer, the perception might be different .The same matter came before one judge and he may take one view and another judge may take another view.
NDTV: Justice Shah, when we talk about consensus and looking at justice from the judiciary's perspectives; looking at other perspectives, the political perspective, some of the arguments you have heard in recent years of judicial overreach; the fact that judges aren't elected, who are they accountable to? At least the politician is. The force of public opinion increasingly however seems to lie with the judiciary. Do you think it's a dangerous trend going forward?
Justice Shah: There is criticism of judiciary saying that this has overreached, this is judicial activism, so according to one opinion this is not an aberration, it's normal judicial function, according to some this is usurpation of power by the judicial branch. If we look at the different trends in judiciary, so prior to emergency, I would say prior to Maneka Gandhi's case, judiciary was concerned to be orthodox. It stood for the property owners, and post emergency period the Supreme Court, I mean, stood up for it. It became an institution trying to promote the idea of social justice, which is the foundation of our Constitution. Now just see how the things moved. Initially these PILs started with those under-privileged people, about their issues like child labour or prisoners or under trials. I mean those are the issues, which were about, which the Court was giving rulings. This has slowly expanded into the larger issues. The Court went to larger issues like rule of law, then the judicial appointments, environment issues and then I feel that lately, I mean the judiciary, is entering into arenas, which are, I am not talking about these 2 judgments, some objection to the, for instance I will give you examples like for instance River Linkage judgment. The Supreme Court mandated there should be linking of rivers. According to many experts, it's a bad idea and it's not feasible. But the Supreme Court ruled on the issue and not obeying a Supreme Court order would amount to contempt of Court. I mean that's, nothing happened thereafter, but according to even the RTI judgment, where they said that only the judges can be only Chief Information Commissioners.
These are the cases of judicial adventurism. But I feel there are areas like the one, which is about the criminalisation of politics. I mean the classic case is this Lilly Thomas. The Supreme Court said that a convicted person would become automatically disqualified. I mean one may say that a 2 judge bench should not have decided it, referred it to larger bench. But the, I think the logic behind this judgment, the undercurrent of the judgment is absolutely correct .I mean the people largely supported the judgment. So, I feel there is tremendous pressure from the people. I think the judiciary is regarded as the only protector of the democracy. I mean that a citizen, you, as any common man that he will have highest faith in judiciary. So I feel the interference in some cases may amount to encroachment on the executive, but where the executive is completely inactive, I mean this is where the cases, where the executive has really has passed taken decisions which are unconstitutional, surely the Court has every reason to interfere
NDTV: Mr Sorabjee would you agree?
Soli Sorabjee: Well apart from cases, where the Supreme Court strays into areas that have got no competence, which everybody calls adventurism, rare cases. But I think the fundamental change, which came about the Supreme Court after the Emergency. Because in Emergency judgment was horrible, the Habeas Corpus decision can be as relieving act. It shows that Court started taking suffering seriously. There cannot be mergers and property and other things and that even itself, it gives a very broad interpretation to set the Constitution provisions. For example right to life. This is not physically existence. It is right to live with dignity. And from that followed many other results, which are beneficial. It is true Supreme Court does over reach itself. Please don't remember. In many cases the occasion where the judiciary intervention is that the executive doesn't implement the laws made by Parliament or Legislation. So the Courts say you made these laws and please implement them. And my telling them is that they are not running the country, asking them to implement the law, because the result of non-implementation may be the violation of human rights of some people, for example young children working in dangerous occupations. There are a lot of laws against that so the Supreme Court rightly interferes and then ensures the protection of the vulnerable segments of Indian humanity, which would otherwise be violated with impunity.
NDTV: The context however Prashant, of course we know that one bill which is now already through in Rajya Sabha, that's a Constitutional Amendment Bill for setting up a Commission which will look at how judges are appointed. We have lucid and heated arguments by Kapil Sibal, the Law Minister, Arun Jaitley looking at why this actually needs to announce some role of executive. In a sense, when I bring up this whole issue of the judiciary-executive, clash may be a strong word, but that's the part and power played, that the judiciary is increasingly, as Justice Shah's said, perhaps the last pillar which is there complete faith in?
Prashant Bhushan: No absolutely. Judicial activism started with this understanding that the role of judiciary is not merely to decide the disputes, but also ensure that the other wings of State, that the executive, legislature function within their powers, as well as do their duty, particularly the executive and coupled with an expansive or a purposive interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life, which was held to mean not just the right to live an animal life, but the right to live a life of dignity and have whatever is minimally necessary to lead of life of dignity. And it was on the basis of that, that judicial activism, environment activism or this anti-corruption activism etc has arisen, because of the twin things; the role of judiciary in ensuring the executive functions within its bounds as well as this purposive, expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. Now obviously this has lead to great disquiet in a corrupt executive. Unfortunately in this country executives have successfully, over a period of years, become more and more corrupt, and therefore abusing its power, not doing their duty, abandoning common people to virtually animal existence etc. And therefore the judiciary had to step in and that is why there is this disquiet executive and a call for putting restraints on the judiciary and this Bill, the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, to some extent, is motivated by that, to somehow get a greater say in the appointment of judges
NDTV: And interestingly in fact that Kapil Sibal in Parliament has said that he changed his own mind because when he was a lawyer had opposed the executive would have a role. But I just wanted to quote some of those speeches in Parliament when Law Minister Kapil Sibal said 'bhai bhatija giri', talking about appointments. Arun Jaitley also made a long speech but he raised the issue about the pre-retirement judgements being influenced by post retirement jobs. He made the point also that the quest for a Lutyens bungalow is also influencing the pre-retiring judges. As a retired judge does it hurt you?
Justice Raveendran: Well, it hurts me a lot. First appointment of judges, judges appointing judges came because a judgment was there. The judgement said this is how it should be done. What is the alternative? Let us assume the executive appoints. Executive, if it does the job properly, we will not be in the position we are in. If in a coalition era, lets us say if we have 3 judges and 4 politicians or 4 nominees of politicians, what is going to happen with the undercurrents, with the pressures of coalition partners? Anything can happen with the appointments. I am not saying that when judges appoint themselves it is a hundred percent fool-proof or good. We cannot have a perfect system. The judges are trying to do their best, it may not be possible to achieve. I would say to get perfection, but a little transparency yes, by members being there, or some outside eminent persons being there is all right. But packing the Commission with non-judges having a majority is certainly going to hurt this system. Yes they can change their mind if the opportunity is there, if they can see what can happen if they could see into the future. If 4 or 5 members, particularly members who are not judges, who are having some kind of political connection, if they come to the Commission, the kind of havoc that can be played. People if they think of it again, they may change their views. And as far as post retirement goes, well you see it is very easy to say that some judges have given some judgment just for a Lutyens Bungalow or a job. I would not say so. You see many acts for retired judges heading commissions. You just change the act. Why do you pervade that retired judges should be there, sitting judges should be there. Nobody is asking that because there is a provision, several acts saying that retired judges should be there. And you should remember, judges retire at the prime age of 65 when they have gained necessary experience to do some good. In other countries 70-75, for life, lawyers go on for 85-90. Politicians don't have it. We are getting, I would not say maturity, the experience and maturity and other thing that make a good judge, when they approach that age they go home. People are ready to go home, some say all right, if there is a provision of appointment what is wrong in taking appointment? But to say that any judge would change his view and write judgment in favour of government to get a post retirement job, it looks a little far-fetched, I mean, having been a judge, my view may not be, I may be prejudiced in that sense. I may be prejudiced
Soli Sorabjee: No, I agree with you. That's not so and I know the judges. But the public perception and public position must be maintained for the confidence of judiciary, so why not have a cooling period? I know it's not there, it's generally believed, and that is very important, so I suggest we can have a cooling period before judges have been appointed to any or head any other commission.
Prashant Bhushan: Even better than that, the easy solution to that is instead of leaving the post retirement appointments to a Commission and tribunal etc in the hands of Government, put it in the hands of an independent judicial appointment commission. Let there be a full time Judicial Appointments Commission. Yes and why not?
NDTV: I also want bring you in on that. I don't know whether anyone has asked you before, this, but we all heard, why many question were raised when you were not elevated to the Supreme Court, and the questions being raised about you not elevated or other judges, who answers those questions?
Justice Shah: I do not wish to speak on that. But I have a different view. So this, see this collegium system I mean, it's really, according to me, it's abused to a large extent, and it's not only because, I mean there are some times there are tee offs between the collegium. It has sycophancy or lobbying has taken place. It has also developed a certain type of servile culture in judiciary because the judges of High Courts are aspiring to be judges of the Supreme Court. So these judges appointing judges is not a good idea according to me. The whole system is opaque. But what happened in this case, in this National Judicial Commission, which is the bill passed, according to me there several flaws in that. First it was very hastily drafted without putting any thought in that. First and foremost, now Mr Sibal has conceded that it should be part of the Constitution. You cannot tamper. You cannot lay down the composition of a judicial commission in ordinary law, which can be altered any time. It should be part of the Constitution.
Secondly Prashant said, and I agree with him, I mean these acts that there will be committee of six and seven members and they will make the appointments to all High Courts and Supreme Court. It is virtually impossible to carry this kind of function. Now the Act is completely silent on many issues. What are the norms? What is the process of where people can apply, whether there can be nominations? Whether, who will make nominations? Whether the Chief Justice of High Court or some other, why should there be no nomination? An academician, who will be consulted in matters of appointment? Now all this cannot be left. What the act does, it clearly says this is the composition of the Commission and the rest is all procedure, laid down by the Commission, which according to me is not a good thinking. There are definitely drawbacks in the collegium system. But when we go 20 years or so, now the time has come, we should adopt, which is more world over recognized, the Judicial Commission. South Africa, the UK, there are many other countries, which follow this, but for heavens sake there has to be more debate on this and it cannot be left merely to Parliamentarians. I'm surprised because of the level of debate. I mean this, what kind of debate is this particular observation you just now mentioned, the bhai bhatija giri is a fact.There is some nepotism but these are not considerations to discuss a bill, which is going to replace the present system, and which should also ensure its judicial independence is not affected in any way. It's a far more serious issue, which I found not dealing with the major issue. How you would constitute a commission? It's not an easy job, whether it's recommendatory, whether it's appointing a commission. There are many issues. There should be more debate on this and then they may evolve. In the meantime it's my belief that why these successive Chief Justices have not taken the note of criticism in the collegium system and try to make it more transparent and try to make it more comprehensive? Now just see, I will give you two examples. Now this nepotism is a big issue. Now there were 2 Bar-passed resolutions, one is Madras Bar and other Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana. As a result, some names were dropped. Now therefore there is something wrong with this system. Now why not the Chief Justice says yes these are the safeguards I would like to introduce till an alternative system is established? Why, all the time sitting judges, members of the collegium want to defend this system? This system definitely, it has drawbacks. So they can themselves improve upon the system, so the ultimately the executive will realise that there is no point in going ahead with this
Soli Sorabjee: Actually if you come to think of it, the whole idea was the collegium system to prevent sarakri judges, because we have in the end committed to Kumar Manglam's ideology. So that was the basic reason. You don't want sarkari judges, you don't mind executive. That is also the original thing. But as it has developed over the years, I suppose, as with any human institution, there have been drawbacks. Even Justice Verma, he expresses his satisfaction and the way it is working. But that changed, reasons for working. What I am trying to say is, keep this in mind what the primary objective was, and actually the thinking is judges know much better about the judges of High Court and about the lawyers who appear before them. But if I may say in one sentence Judiciary should have a dominant voice but not an exclusive voice.
Justice Shah: I would say the judges must welcome this criticism, they must understand that they are under constantly scrutiny. It is very important for the, I mean that at one time all this criticism could be suppressed with the power of contempt of court
NDTV: I must get Prashant Bhushan on that because you faced that as well. But some, did you feel there was perhaps too sweeping a statement? You faced the threat of contempt
Prashant Bhushan: Yes you see I was asked something about corruption in the judiciary and in response to that I said yes there is considerable corruption in the judiciary and the commonly held belief among some people or the commonly propagated belief, particularly among the judiciary is that the level of corruption is very little at the top and increases at the bottom. I said this is not a correct perception and then I said in my view about half of last 16 Chief Justices have been corrupt.
NDTV: In fact isn't that sweeping statement without evidence, Prashant, to make?
Prashant Bhushan: No, I gave evidence for that. They challenged me to give. I did. You see I am not obliged to give evidence with my perception. However, because I was charged for contempt, because they were persisting in that charge of contempt, so therefore I gave evidence that this is the basis on which I believe A B C D E F G H were corrupt. And in fact my father Mr Shanti Bhushan even gave the names, he also filed his affidavit etc. It's a fact that there has been considerable corruption in the judiciary. There is no denying that. There is no denying that there is no getting away from that either and that is why this kind controversies that you have mentioned, Chief Justice of Gujarat and a former Chief Justice, between an earlier sitting Chief Justice today in Supreme Court and a former Chief Justice, where there was this dispute about whether a judge from Madras had sent a complaint about this Raja talking to him on the phone to give bail, and the Chief Justice said, no, no I was not given any name of any Minister. And then that other judge had to point out, Justice Gokhale, had to issue a press statement pointing out what the Chief Justice, the former Chief Justice of India was saying, it is false; that I had myself written to him and given him the name of the minister who had spoken etc.
Justice Raveendran: Well, whether there is corruption in the judiciary and what level, what percentage is also a perception. Some may have proof and some may not be proved. But what is happening is by talking about corruption in the judiciary constantly the courts are being scandalized. Courts are not able to perform and they are getting nervous, like a Government officer now does not want to take a decision because it may be said that he is doing it for a consideration. Many Government officers are avoiding taking decisions and a day may come when every action is suspect because we will find something peculiar about judiciary. As far as judges are concerned they rendered judgment. When we render judgment one party is satisfied, one party will never be satisfied. The loser will never be satisfied. Therefore there always will be a perception with the loser that something is wrong with the judge. And sometimes many lawyers unscrupulously have said it may be on account of corruption. Every time an allegation is being made it may not really be corruption. It may be ignorance and it may be perception of what law is, not perception what facts are. And to say for all and sundry reasons there is no corruption or decision consideration, you know it damages the institution of democracy. People; Justice Shah just now is saying that at least people have some confidence in judiciary. People go to Court if some relief is to be given. If we destroy the credibility of that institution where will people go? People will go to local mafia. People will go to police and try to get out of this thing. Let us not; we should be very careful, as Prashant says, that no corruption enters the judiciary and we should be vigilant and he being right in being vigilant. I should also put a caveat that we should not be repeating, seen to be repeating about corruption in judiciary without actual basis, to give an impression to the public that judges are corrupt.
NDTV: I completely agree, undermining the institution.
Justice Shah: You see the, in my state, as a judge in 3 High Courts, it's my own experience that most of the judges haven't; I will say that they are very hard working, with a dignity. I sat with some of them. I worked with them, but I cannot say that I cannot rule out that some of the judges were inappropriately influenced by some constraints. I mean Justice Raveendran rightly, this the matter of perception, rightly said it's is a matter of perception, but I entirely agree with him that if you go on repeating that here is corruption in judiciary, it's simply you are harming the institution. So what is that we are not going to main issue, how do you determine or investigate allegations of corruption against the judge? And now that's the real issue, according to me where there is no accountability. There is no, see ultimately I feel accountability has to do something with the public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. That is really the issue, of accountability. Now if you have mechanism like impeachment for instance, which is simply unworkable and I mean, with 3 impeachments one failed and two persons resigned.
Today the, they have gone to the extreme Accountability Bill, which I believe, just I will take 2 minutes on that. The impeachment says only 100 members must initiate in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha and then along can it be initiated. So this is defective mechanism, but it's very important, that you cannot, and I mean put the judges career in jeopardy, because somebody thinks about it. Now this accountability Bill, according to me, is one of the absolute draconian laws, which says that any person can file a complaint against a judge, even the Government. Then that complaint will go before a committee called Judicial Oversight Committee. That committee will consist of 5 members. Now they wanted to put some politician, fortunately that is avoided. Then that committee acts like a post box and it sends the complaint to a scrutiny committee, which consists of judges of the same court. 2 judges and a retired Chief Justice and they are supposed to inquire if there is a prima facie case against the judge, and then they will make reference to the larger committee and thereafter there will be inquiry etc. According to me, this particular Bill is completely violates Article 124(5). What the Article says is that Parliament is given power to lay down the procedure or initiation of that impeachment process. But it doesn't give power to create a completely new mechanism, that mechanism is really frightening. That anyone can make a complaint against any judge and that complaint has to be investigated. See this is not followed even in Government departments. As Chief Justice I am telling you I used to receive hundreds of complaints. Most of the complaints were completely false, because somebody loses the case.
NDTV: Mr. Sorabjee, taking it beyond, because I think we have also spent a lot of time focusing on this the key part. But taking it beyond this, the idea of justice for the ordinary citizen, for an average petitioner who approaches Court, the issue of backlog, the issue of judge to citizen ratio. We are talking about fast track courts and many asked why shouldn't every case be considered the same importance. What is slow track? Where are we on these key issues even in terms of thinking about addressing them, with seriousness on part of the government? The judiciary, I know, has been asking to fill up vacancies. But again, when they have, for all this to be done, there has been slowness on the judicial part as well. Where are we on these issues?
Soli Sorabjee: Well about the backlog, there are three tiers, first the government, our ratio of judge to the population is woefully short. Number one, we haven't got enough judges. Besides, judges who are appointed are not very able and there are other considerations and some. Not always. There is no infrastructure. The judge who represents the subordinate court has no stenographer. He writes something; takes the evidence; there is no library. So the government has to see that part. Secondly, I am sorry, my community the legal fraternity also responsible for these arrears, and there are certain lawyers known in Delhi as adjournment lawyers. They are briefed only to get an adjournment, because once an interim say is obtained then every trick in the book is used. Leave against dysentery, client gets diarrhoea.
NDTV: There are cases over 20 years, just in Delhi.
Soli Sorabjee: These things happen. Unfortunately judges are not strict enough. I mean they don't like to refuse judgments, not to dismiss their own lawyers maybe. The thing is that they are not running a popularity contest. They must be strict in this regard. As I said, three tiers government, judiciary and the legal fraternity. So, here's a crusade of areas where all three have to act in co-ordination.
NDTV: I think it has to be crusade and that has..
Soli Sorabjee: For any reason, not filling up of vacancies, which are known to occur
Justice Shah: Just see, the government's approach. In 2009, Mr Moily was Law Minister. The then Law Minister said that they will create 25,000 ad hoc appointments to clear the arrears. One appointment was made. One year back, or even before that I think, I am part of that committee, Judicial Reforms Committee, where it was promised that the; it will be increased by at least 100%. So it will be done gradually, you can't have 15,000 judges in one go. So it has to be done gradually. Then at least 3-4000 new posts every year, not one post, new post, is created. So apart from that, just see the infrastructure and number of judges. Apart from that, our laws have become archaic. All our procedural courts etc. If you see around, say Singapore, Thailand or other countries, say Europe, everywhere the procedural laws have been amended. Our laws, our procedural laws are completely archaic. We don't have anything worthwhile mentioning about case management or docket management and we have a backlog of 3 crore. This is impossible. A life span of a civil case today is not less than 20 years I mean, I am not talking about appeal to the Supreme Court ordinarily. The Court to the District Court to the High Court, I am just taking that period and it is so shocking that the appeals against acquittal, take for instance a Court like Allahabad. A criminal appeal, it was against acquittal, it was allowed somewhere around after 20 years, 25 years and the man was sent to jail. And it was allowed and he was convicted for murder. So where are we heading? So this should be the first priority of the judges, of the judiciary. This is what I feel.
NDTV: No, in fact, Justice Raveendran, Lalu Prasad Yadav convicted after 17 years; Rasheed Masood again convicted after 20 years. I mean everyone is very elated about this judgment, but look at how long they have taken
Justice Raveendran: I agree there is delay in Courts. It is proverbial. Delay and Courts are always connected. But please remember that in rendering judgments judiciary is not the only stakeholder, there are prosecutors, there are investigators. If the investigation is bad or investigation is lopsided or investigation is delayed, there is delay. There are, you would surprised to know that there are Courts, three Courts or two Courts with one Prosecutor. Therefore the judge waits for the prosecutor who has gone to the next court, because no case can go on in his Court until the prosecutor comes. Therefore prosecutors sometimes are not well trained. They are not in a position to present the cases. They are subject to political influences. Therefore, when it comes to a decision, yes I would say lack of adequate number of judges is one reason. The other reasons are also there. Of course as he rightly said, there should be more modernization of courts and procedures. The laws, the archaic laws should go and the system of our writing judgments, hundreds of pages of judgments should somehow be cut and there should also be a system of cutting short the appeals. We have now every matter, would you believe it, the Supreme Court gets cases where an injunction, temporary injunction has been refused or granted. A bail is refused or granted, an adjournment is refused and granted. A special leave petition is filed and with this, it has to be done, and it is being done.
And as you rightly pointed out, somewhere down the line a young lawyer appears, somebody wants to encourage him or a senior lawyer whose word has to be respected appears, notice is issued. Things happen. You see no other country; in United States the Supreme Court takes 250 cases per term, that's all. No hearing, no preliminary hearing at all, no oral hearing. In Supreme Court here, you would be surprised to know Mondays and Fridays the entire day, entire two days, judges do only preliminary work and for doing that preliminary work they read for four days, for four full days. If those judges had four full days for doing the other work, the disposals will increase. Of course, some are systematic problems; some are judgment problems.
NDTV: Perhaps the raising the retirement age because that in itself would help the backlog that; Prashant, that point of justice delayed, justice denied. Also a larger issue, the criminal justice system, because we talked about pressure on public prosecutor, the person who represents the victim, the state helping the victim. Here, the irony is that, I talk about the Uphaar Case judgment, many others, where you appeared as well, where the victim is left with burden of an overburdened Government system. The ones, that can have the best lawyers, you can have adjournment lawyers like Soli Sorabjee said, have access to best resources. Now the CBI, say suddenly taking outside lawyers, senior advocates appear for them. The system seems currently slanted against the victim.
Prashant Bhushan: Not just slanted against the victim. No it's slanted against any poor common man because ...
NDTV: PIL have helped them though...
Prashant Bhushan: PIL, some people, not whole lot of them. You see today a person who cannot afford a lawyer, and 80 percent of the population of the country cannot afford a lawyer, really cannot even access the judicial system of this country because the procedures are so complex that they can only be accessed by a lawyer who understands those procedures, not by a common person. So if you are a common person, and you have been charged with an offence by the police; street vendor charge sheeted by the police for something or the other, he is virtually at the mercy of the police or the judge. He can't even defend himself. Actually, you really ask the question how many people in this country are able to get justice through this judicial system in this country? The honest answer in my view would be not even 2 percent, because 80 percent cannot even access the system. Out of the remaining 20 percent, 90 percent of their cases linger around. By the time they get decided eventually, lost intermittently the whole purpose; so, therefore, and even those which do get decided quickly, very often wrongly, because of incompetence or sometimes because of corruption in the judiciary also. So we have a huge problem. It requires addressing this problem. It requires redesigning the judicial systems so that judiciary can be accessed without lawyers. It needs to be made so informal that a common person should be able to come and say, look my cow has been stolen by this person, please help me, and that judicial system should be able to respond to such a cry of even an illiterate person, but unfortunately that's not the case.
NDTV: We are now in the final round of, final phase of this Dialogue. Mr Sorabjee, the impact, as I said, of the Supreme Court judgment on disbarring convicted politicians; the impact of sending two former Chief Ministers, in fact three, Mr Chautala, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mr Jaganath Mishra and different cases being sent to jail by Courts. The impact that Supreme Court, in the larger climate of democracy today; how important do you think that really is?
Soli Sorabjee: That's very good. It sent the right signal that crime does not eventually pay. It may take time. You see there are so many factors. But remember, despite everything, you ask a man on the street, this is an important Commission to be appointed, is he happy with just the Secretary? We want the judge that is so. No, some times even say not retired judges, even the sitting judge. But this confidence we must preserve. One thing I want to say, I would not like to, tendency of some people and some counsel who don't say the judgment was harmonious, but judgment was dishonest. That sort of mental makeup I do not appreciate at all. The judgment, which has gone against you need not to be dishonest. It can be erroneous, don't do that. Off course weed out corruption, don't magnify. Aise hi. Justice Raveendran said, if you weed out the confidence what will happen? You will go to local Mafia, kitna time chaiye khaali karo, kaahey kyun khaali karega nai khaali karega, strong arm tactics and where do we go? So this is thing we must recognize, the menace of corruption. But we must also devise proper methods of losing, doing it and in that I don't think we should have wholesale confirmation of judiciary. Because from my experience I know, judges in court I have known are honest, conscientious, we don't want any rotten eggs. Rotten eggs have tarnished the image, but majority of them are confidently hardworking, honest and conscientious. But there are rotten eggs. It's unfortunate. 30 years back if someone said judge is dishonest we'd think he had a drink or he is crazy. Now these things are taken seriously. That is what happens and even it means very drastic action, and as far as an erring judge is concerned and all are for it, providing he has the opportunity of defending himself. Impeachment procedure is cumbersome.
It's proved to be useless. It has got politicised. Let's devise another procedure and I would be very clear, in the accountability commission or whatever no lay person. Or you will have a person who has been defeated, is dumped, they think, isme paisa khaya hai?. There it must be by people of money, of eminence, people of credibility confidence but not lay persons. On that Justice Verma and I had a, were completely at one.
NDTV: It opens up a conversation of ideas and issues that are really crucial to democracy. I want to thank you all for being part of it, Justice Raveendran, Justice Shah, Soli Sorabjee and Prashant Bhushan. Thank you all for all coming tonight.