Unprecedented as it is, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan's recommendation to the government for the removal of Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen has exposed a legal lacuna. For, Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 does not
envisage a contingency where the judiciary approaches the executive for the removal of a judge; the impeachment process provided by it is entirely in the domain of Parliament.

The Centre will move an impeachment motion against Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen on a recommendation by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan seeking his dismissal for corrupt practices which have brought disrepute to the judiciary.

For only the second time in the history of India’s higher judiciary, the Chief Justice of India has recommended that a judge be removed from “service”.

The Supreme Court on Monday posted for hearing in an open court on July 17 a petition seeking a CBI probe into what is called the “Ghaziabad judges scam”.

Open court hearing Ghaziabad PF in scam case ; Hindustan Times; July 15,2008

The supreme court on Monday reached a “unanimous” agreement that the infamous UP provident fund scam, unearthed from a Ghaziabad court recently allegedly involving several sitting and retired judges, needed to be probed thoroughly.

The Chief Justice of India should immediately order a high-level probe by a competent investigative agency to examine the truthfulness of charges against 36 judges, alleged to have financially benefited in the Ghaziabad multi-crore provident fund scam, top jurists of the country have said.

In a development unprecedented in the country’s judicial history, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the government’s anti-corruption watchdog, has forwarded a set of complaints with allegations of corruption and misconduct against former Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal to the government for further action.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati to render assistance in a petition seeking a CBI probe into what is called the “Ghaziabad judges’ scam” allegedly involving 26 judges (one apex court judge, seven High Court judges, six retired High Court judges, 10 serving district judges and two retired district judges).

Faced with accusations having the potential to unhinge the traditional public perception of the judiciary's clean image, the SC on Monday decided to examine the possible mode of probe into the Rs 23 crore illegal PF withdrawal scam allegedly involving 23 judges, including some from the HCs and one from the apex court.

The Supreme Court today agreed to take a call on whether to start a judicial probe against 14 current and former apex court and high court judges in a scam running into crores.

In an attempt to settle the controversy surrounding the implementation of Right to Information Act in the judiciary, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Supreme Court officials and the Department of Personnel and Training to present their views on the matter.

In an unprecedented move, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has agreed to subject 12 judges of higher judiciary to interrogation in Rs seven crore Ghaziabad District Courts Treasury Scam.

There are several instances where the Indian judicial establishment has tried to dilute the applicability of RTI to the courts and the judicial system. No matter what the issue, the penultimate interpretation lies with the courts, and RTI is no exception.

THE FIGHT for citizens' right to know about the details of judges' wealth, appointments and complaints of misconduct against them reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday with a petition demanding implementation of the Right to Information Act in the judiciary.

I am a public servant," declared Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishanan settling the dust that had arisen over whether or not judges of the Supreme Court and high courts were public servants or not.

CORRUPTION is another challenge we face both in the government and the judiciary”: Prime Minister in his address
to Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts (April 19, 2008)

TWO RECENT judgements of the Supreme Court on judicial activism and PILs have expectedly generated a spirited controversy within the Supreme Court and outside about the scope and limits of the court's jurisdiction in PILs and about judicial activism in general.