Lawyers Contribution (!) to Corruption in Administration of Justice

Several prominent jurists and Sociologists have decried the falling standards of justice and increasing incidence of corruption in the administration of justice in the hierarchy of Courts. The latest of such cry was voiced by Shri Madhav Gadkari, Editor, Daily Loksatta from Bombay in relation to the Bombay High Court. Unfortunately nothing of consequence is said about the role of the lawyer in this sad debacle of judicial standards.  A brief but penetrating scrutiny of administration of justice in independent India will show that the lawyers, who are treated as equal participants in pulling the chariot of justice, have played significant and vital role both in falling of the standards of justice and corruption in judiciary.  Recruitment of judges in subordinate judiciary was with the High Court till recently, when it was handed over to Public Service Commission. The High Court had, by long established practice, recruited persons with average knowledge of law and unencumbered living conditions to these posts. It avoided, to a great extent, acceptance of bribe for living comfortably. Devoid of this background knowledge, the Public Service Commission made indiscriminate appointments. It is pertinent to note that though a High Court Judge is taken up as member of the Commission he had no vote till about 1982 in the matter of selection of subordinate judges. The expert knowledge about lawyers desirous of taking up judicial service was lacking. It resulted in such lawyers or some of them taking up soliciting for such posts, and factual appointment of such lawyers.  It is indisputable that the mode and standard of recruitment has direct relationship with standard of the cadre recruited. Accordingly, the manner of recruitment to the subordinate judiciary should have been such as will result in recruitment of persons who take up judgeship as service and cause and not for making easy, illgotten money. Strong common sense and generally good upbringing are sufficient to prevent an ordinarily honest man from accepting bribe for being injudicious. These were essentially the aspects that were taken into consideration by the High Court when the power to nominate subordinate judiciary was with the High Court. In fact, even High Court Judges were appointed basically on these considerations. Enquiry into payment of Income-tax, other properties owned by the lawyer were relevant not for determining his capacity to be just but to ascertain his capacity to desist temptation to accept consideration for being unjust. It is the total disregard to this aspect while appointing persons to judiciary that has resulted in the falling of standards in judiciary.  Solid and noble social background and upbringing also played a vital role in the matter of recruitment of judges. A person who most unfortunately is born in the circumstances where husband beating wife is an incident of almost daily occurring would be unfit for appointment as a judge, if he is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in such behaviour. Basic concepts of what is right and what is wrong must be present in a person before he can be considered for judgeship. It was with this idea in mind that gamblers, womanisers, drunkards etc. were not considered for judicial appointments. Now-a-days none of these drawbacks are considered while making a judicial appointment.  In the seventies, the service conditions of subordinate judicial officers were not in keeping with the inflating standards of the society. But during the same time fees charged by the lawyers increased substantially though not correspondingly. The necessary result of this disparity was strained relationship between the two wheels of the chariot of justice — the well oiled wheel wanting to smoothen up the creaking wheel. Feeling this burden of disparity some lawyers resorted to short-cut and decided themselves to "oil" the other creaking wheel. This gave birth to the devil of corruption in judiciary which is now, in late eighties, assuming demonic proportion. The short-cut proved fatal; being easy it was adopted by as many of lawyers as could subdue their conscience. The substantial increases granted by the Government were also of no avail to counter-balance the "Oiling of Palms". It became increasingly difficult for judges to avoid the temptation of 'easy money'.  The lack of expert advice in the matter of appointment, disparity in the earnings of subordinate judiciary and lawyers appearing before them, lack of educational, cultural and economic background and shaky economic stability are, therefore, the causes for the decline in judicial standards. The lawyers took undue advantage of this situation for their selfish gains and tempted the unguided, gullible judges in the vortex of corruption tarnishing the clean image of judiciary forever.  It will thus be seen that it was because of the lawyers offering allurements in cash or kind to the judges that the corruption in judiciary began. Even today, a vast majority of the corrupt judges accept favours from lawyers or through lawyers. Even today very very few of such corrupt judges are brazen enough to approach a litigant directly. So even now, if the lawyers desirous of becoming rich by 'shortcut' desist from such anti-social activity, the number of corrupt judges would fall by about 90%.  These aspects are not taken into consideration by Shri Madhav Gadkari in his brief, penetrating and bold article (Loksatta dated 8-2-1986) imploring for stopping the downfall of High Court. While condemning judges for misbehaviour, the part played by the lawyers in abetting that misbehaviour cannot be completely ignored. Concerted, concrete and immediate steps, therefore, must be taken by the Associations of lawyers and the State Bar Council. It is note worthy in this context that Akola Bar Association has decided to publicly discuss the evil of corruption in judiciary from all angles including the contribution of lawyers for nourishing the evil.  Self-awakening of lawyers to this aspect of corruption is, therefore, the need of the century, if this downfall of judiciary is to be stopped before it is too late. It must be remembered that honest and upright judiciary is a basic requirement of Rule of Law in our country. The downfall of judiciary would be a death blow to Rule of Law and no true democracy can exist without Rule of Law. It is, therefore, for the lawyers to abdicate the passive attitude of "what can I do" or "what have I to do with it" towards falling standards of judiciary Members of the Bar must unite and fight those responsible for corruption in judiciary — both judges and lawyers alike.  If this decline in judicial standards both due to faulty appointments and increasing corruption, is not effectively and immediately checked, the corridors of Courts will be clogged not by professionals assisting administration of justice but by black-robed pimps of corrupted justice, shamelessly selling justice.  Judges, at all stages, are appointed from amongst the members of the Bar. Where a bar unitedly opposes corruption, a Judge will be quite apprehensive of seeking liaison with any member of such a bar. Similar should be the fear in the minds of members of the Bar. It is possible that such state of affairs can exist If, and that is a very big if, a large majority of the Bar is sincerely opposed to corruption. Apprehension of expulsion and public censure and exposure would certainly deter a member of the Bar from seeking out the corruptible judge. Today, though a sizeable section of the lawyers sincerely desist corruption they are unable to do anything or even say anything about this corrupting influence wielded by some corrupt members of the Bar who have converted many a good judge to the vile ways of corruption. Many lawyers feel that gradually it is becoming impossible to practise the profession in the face of the corruptive forces of Justice Traders and may require many of the new entrants to become pimps of judges selling justice solely due to reasons of self-survival. When — there is no if — such thing happens the entire edifice of judiciary will collapse.  No sensible citizen of India can and should tolerate such deterioration of our system of justice. He must himself desist from obtaining favourable decision in his litigation, prevent his lawyer from acting in corrupt manner. He should help development of fearless and uncorrupt bar — by engaging lawyer and not an agent to purchase justice — which will in future supply fearless and uncorrupt judges.  He should -remember that once a judge is corrupted he may do injustice in another litigation where he (the citizen) may be at the receiving end.  It is also necessary to point out at this stage that unnecessary criticism-of social relationship between judges and lawyers must also be stopped. When Judges and Lawyers are called two wheels of the chariot of justice, it is but natural that they would mix socially. Occasional gatherings of such kind even if accompanied by food and beverages (alcoholic or otherwise) should not be branded as antisocial gathering of selfish and corrupt minds.  Homely relations without undertones of favouritism cannot be injurious to the administration of justice.  Judges, now-a-days need not live in "ivory towers" and forget the inevitable economical, social and political background which generates litigation. However, they also should not drown themselves in the filth of corruption in the name of socialising. As in their judgments, so in their lives also, they should draw a golden mean between good and evil. They can moderately socialise without indulging in any kind of favouritism.

Author Name: V G Palshikar