Bill For Disciplining Higher Judiciary

New Delhi, Nov 10 (UNI) Supreme Court and High Court Judges against whom charges of misbehaviour or incapacity are proved may face actions ranging from advisories to removal and denial of government assignment, arbitration work and chamber practice.

On the other hand, anyone found to have made false or frivolous or vexatious complaints against a Judge may face a year's imprisonment and up to Rs 25,000 fine.

Those are among provisions in the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 cleared by the Union Cabinet on Thursday and expected to be introduced in the winter session of Parliament beginning November 22.

The Bill provides for setting up a National Judicial Council made up of Chief Justice of India, two seniormost Supreme Court Judges and two High Courts Chief Justices to be nominated by the CJI.

If a complaint is against a Supreme Court Judge, the two HCs Chief Justices will be replaced by Supreme Court Judges.

The proposed Council will examine complaints received directly or on reference from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

The Bill entails maintaining secrecy of identity of persons-- including the complainant and the Judge concerned-- any violation resulting in a month's imprisonment or up to Rs 500 fine or both.

''Every such inquiry shall be conducted in camera by the Chairperson and the Members of the Council sitting jointly,'' the Bill says.

Identity of complainant ''shall not be disclosed and he shall be provided proper protection,'' it says.

The procedure proposed in the Bill is to dismiss complaints if no charges are proved.

But if charges of misbehaviour or incapacity are proved ''and the Council is of the opinion that the charges proved do not warrant removal of the Judge, it may impose all or any of the following minor measures: -- Issuing advisories -- Issuing warnings -- Withdrawal of judicial work for a limited time, including cases already assigned -- Request that the judge may voluntarily retire -- Censure or admonition, public or private.

If the Council is satisfied that all or any of the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity in complaints it receives directly have been proved and are of serious nature warranting a Judge's removal, it shall advise the President accordingly.

The President on receipt of advice shall cause the findings of the Council along with the accompanying materials to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This will be followed by the government moving a motion in either House to present an address to the President praying for removal of the said Judge.

If the inquiry was initiated on a reference from the Speaker or the Chairman, then the Council shall forward its report to the Speaker or the Chairman.

If the findings warrant removal, then the motion together with the report of the Council, shall be taken up for consideration by the House in which it is pending.

A Judge so removed shall be disqualified: -- for any diplomatic assignment, appointment as an administrator of a Union territory and such other assignment as required by law to be made by President by warrant under his hand and seal.

-- For further employment to any office of profit under the Union or State government.

-- To act as an arbitrator in any arbitration proceedings -- To pursue chamber practice.

Accountability of the lower judiciary is taken care of by the respective High Courts.

UNI MJ RP DS1615