Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Cumbersome impeachment exercise should not be only option against an erring judge

Cumbersome impeachment exercise should not be only option against an erring judge

Q. Do you think a mere transfer is an option against a High Judge at whose house crores worth of unaccounted cash were allegedly found?

The Delhi High Court judge case is becoming more curious with every passing day, as the judge under question says a conspiracy was hatched to malign him. Against the backdrop of contradictory reports, do you believe an internal inquiry is the best way to restore faith in the higher echelons of the judiciary while protecting the judiciary’s independence?

-- R Ramalingam, Chennai

The transfer of a judge against whom allegations of corruption are made to another High Court is not a solution. It would only amount to "exporting corruption". Under the Constitution, the only way to impeach a judge is by the Parliament. But that is also partly political because even if the charge of 'misbehaviour' is proved against the corrupt judge by the three-judge inquiry committee, the parliament members will vote not based on a vote of conscience but by the whip issued by the respective parties. The present "in-house inquiry" and the denial of work and transfers are a stop-gap arrangement adopted by the Supreme Court.

This is not a final solution but an ad-hoc solution. We must evolve a constitutional procedure to impose appropriate punishment against an erring judge short of the cumbersome political exercise of impeachment.

---

Noisy motorists should be tasked to regulate traffic in crowded junctions during peak hours

Pothole-ridden roads. We see plenty of them all over the city. Some are weather-related, but most are man-made due to the negligence of various civic departments. The media often highlights them, but there are hardly any solutions to the never-ending problems. Adding to these woes is another man-made nuisance — that of blaring horns. The cacophony of various horns deafens road users, but still, some continue to use multi-toned and high-pressure horns and also modify the silencers to maximise the sound. Despite the media running awareness campaigns, there have been no positive outcomes. Can't the pollution board, transport department and traffic police control this menace? There is no clarity on who controls what, and questions about checking noise decibels have no answers. Are there any rules and regulations governing noise pollution, or any laws to keep this dangerous pollution in check? Can courts help instil some sense in authorities concerned?

-- Ramachandran, Madhavaram Milk Colony

Potholes and street noise pollution have become unmanageable of late. There are several reasons for this.

The owners modify the horns provided by the car manufacturers to increase the sound. Bikers also remove the silencer for the mere thrill of annoying other road users. Horns can destroy the eardrums, and these matters have little civic sense. Further, our roads are clogged with more vehicles than they can hold.

Nonetheless, noise-making motorists should not be let off with fines.

As provided in the new criminal code (BNSS), they should be made to do community service as part of the penalty. The work given to those violators should be traffic regulation in a crowded junction during peak hours for a week. Only then can they be reformed and noise pollution brought down.