CJAR reveals the myriad weaknesses in bill and its attendant parliamentary report which cannot be left undealt in public.

Tehelka recognises and clarifies promptly in the wake of debunking

Prashant Bhushan wrote to President of India to request for making a reference to the Supreme Court for inquiry into the misbehaviour of Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, Chairman, National Human Rights Commission and ex-Chief Justice of India under Sec 5(1) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Similar letter was sent to Prime Minister of India

Justice V R Krishna Iyer declares that the time has come for a democratic revolt against the judiciary and for the appointment of a performance commission for judges.

Prashant Bhushan aired his lateral views different from panellists invited in the seminar organised Bar Association of India, at Teen Murti Bhavan, New Delhi, on 5th March 2011.

Senior Advocate and former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan spoke on 9th Dec 2010, in support of judges being brought under ambit of the new draft bill being circulated and discussed in civil society organisations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-NdDhPVnng

Justice(s) Katju and Misra clarified vide order; after IA was filed for expungement before Supreme Court, about remarks made regarding Allahabad High court, wherein "some" were castigated for corruption, vide case related judgement

Mythili Bhusnurmath opines that it is high time that institutional safeguards are put in place to eliminate curruption in judiciary.

Justice V R Krishna Iyer in his article in Hindu reacts to the application filed by Senior Advocate Mr Shanti Bhushan in the Contempt of Court proceedings against his son Mr Prashant Bhushan and recomends that a Grand Jury needs to be constituted to look into the phenomenon of corruption in apex court.

Senior Advocate Mr Shanti Bhushan filed an application for being impleaded as Respondents in the Contempt of Court proceedings against his son Mr Prashant Bhushan. In his application, he has stated "[O]ut of these [16 previous Chief Justices], eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed." He has also placed on record a list of corrupt judges in a sealed cover.

Justice Krishna Iyer writes in Hindu about Politics and Judiciary. He believes that Judges are a third instrumentality of the state and are governed by the politics of the Constitution

In the wake of Justice KG Balakrishnan retiring as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Manoj Mitta provides a scathing critique of some trends especially highlighted in his recent justicing career

Marking the retirement of Justice A.P. Shah as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and recognizing his judicial legacy characterized by his consistent sympathy for the rights of the poor, the weak and the marginalized, an umbrella of 15 human rights organizations, people’s movements and academic/cultural institutions organised a Panel address on the issue of Sensitizing the Judiciary to the Rights of the Poor – The Judicial Legacy of Justice A.P. Shah on the 6th of April 2010 at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House. The Seminar was addressed by an eminent panel of lawyers, social activists and academicians and attended by over 200 activists, lawyers, academicians, students and concerned citizens

In his most recent blog post Justice D Y Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court comes down heavily on the manner of functioning of the collegium of the Supreme Court of India which he says has drawn flak from all sections of society and "it is a matter of utmost concern and even a matter of shame for the members of the judiciary that the collegium of the Supreme Court is blissfully remaining insensitive to public opinion/reaction, but, is only playing GOD..." Find here his recent open letter to the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court

In a pro rich system he always ruled pro poor, pro justice. Is that why he was not appointed to the Supreme Court? Shobita Naithani of Tehelka profiles retired Delhi High Court Chief Justice, A. P. Shah

First S.Govind Swaminadhan Memorial Lecture at the Madras High Court Bar in Chennai on 29 January 2010 delivered by CJI(Retd.), J.S.Verma

The two day 3rd National Convention on “Making the Judiciary Accountable and Responsive to the People” organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms was held at the Nehru Memorial Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi on the 6th-7th of February 2010. The Convention was attended by over 200 people representing various organisations and movements from across the country. The Convention was addressed by a range of distinguished speakers on the twin issues of judicial accountability and reforms specifically dealing with the issues of appointment of judges and complaints against and removal of judges, the judiciary and public discourse, the judiciary and the environment-development dichotomy, the judiciary and civil liberties as well as the judiciary and the poor. Read here the backgroudnote i resolution passed at the conclusion of the convention and highlights of Day 1.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform has sent a letter to Shri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, regarding the 3 member enquiry committee appointed to enquire into the motion for removal of Jusitce P.D. Dinakaran. The letter brings to Shri Ansari's notice that Justice Sirupurkar’s friendship with Justice Dinakaran, coupled with his prejudgement of the matter, places him in a position where if he inquires into this matter, justice will not be seen to be done. The same would be the case with Shri P.P. Rao who has been formally consulted in the matter by Justice Dinakaran. The letter further requests that these facts be placed before Justice Sirupurkar and Shri P.P. Rao and they be asked whether they would like to recuse themselves from the inquiry committee, to avoid any further controversy in the matter.

"Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a full Bench of the Delhi High court held on the 12th of January 2010. The historic judgment which rules that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” that comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act also held that judges of superior courts should make public their assets. "Judicial independence was not a judge’s personal privilege but a responsibility cast upon him"

Karnataka High Court’s Justice DV Shylendra Kumar voices on his blog, his disapproval and the impropriety of Karnataka CJ Dinakaran continuing to exercise administrative functions while “his past conduct and exploits do not inspire the confidence of the people”. He points to the abuse and misuse of power in CJ Dinakaran’s declining permission to hold a meeting of all judges of the High Court to discuss the function and conduct of Justice Dinakaran himself

This is Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s reply (filed in the Supreme Court on the 8th of Decemeber, 2009) to the contempt petition filed by Mr. Harish Salve on the basis on an interview given by Mr. Bhushan to the Tehelka magazine.

The notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Justice Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karanataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of Constitution of India for his various acts of misbehavior, including dishonest judicial orders, irregular and dishonest administrative actions, etc. Also annexed is an explanatory note on the motion for impeachement. The motion is proposed to be signed by M.P.s of the Rajya Sabha and then be submitted to the Vice President.

Another victory for transparency and accountability as the Chief Information Commission has held the appointment of judges is a “public activity” which cannot be withheld from disclosure, directing the Supreme Court to make public the records of appointing three justices of the apex court who superseded their seniors. RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal had sought complete correspondence between authorities concerned relating to appointment of Justices H L Dattu, A K Ganguly and R M Lodha superseding seniority of Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and V K Gupta as allegedly objected by Prime Minister's Office

Here’s an interesting communication – a letter written by the Supreme Court Bar Association President Mr. M. N. Krishnamani to the Editor, Tehelka, regarding an earlier interview published in the magazine wherein Mr. Prashant Bhushan had stated that Jusitce Kapadia had violated the conflict of interest principle in deciding the Vendanta Cases despite having sharing in Sterlite (a subsidiary company). Mr. Krishnamani lauds Justice Kapadia’s ‘no one objected’ stand in not recusing himself, it being in accordance with the laid down rule in the Code of Conduct for Judges while he goes on to assert the rampant corruption in the judiciary. For this and Mr. Bhushan’s pointed reply

There have been a spate of recusals from the Indian Supreme Court in the past. However recent trends point towards confusing and differing standards for recusal of a judge. As public pressure now mounts towards a determination of this question, we remain with the question – When faced with a conflict of interest, what standard should judges across the country follow? This article probes whether judges should recuse or should they offer to recuse and indicates that the Supreme Court precedent and past history offer a clear guide.

The Supreme Court on Monday, 2nd November, posted the Assets of Supreme Court judges on its website, clarifying that the declarations were being made on a voluntary basis only! This despite the fact that the decision to reveal assets on the website was taken on Aug. 26 in the backdrop of a raging controversy over resistance by the SC to answer a query regarding assets of judges. As this MailToday story reports, declarations lack information with some Judges giving only sketchy details and not mentioning the value of their movable and immovable assets.

Public opinion is now stirring over the issue of appointment of judges, especially appointments made to the Supreme Court and High Courts in India, which remain largely arbitrary, adhoc and non-transparent. The man at the centre of the storm is the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Dinakaran, whose name has been recommended, along with four others by the SC collegium for elevation as judges of the SC. The controversy came to surface with a written complaint to the SC collegium by the Forum for Judicial Accountability. The first representation against Jusitce Dinakaran dated 9th September 2009 was regarding his amassing huge assets, corruption and serious irregularities. The Second representation listed further particulars with supporting material and the 3rd representation surfaced additional information regarding amassing of further properties and the exercise of judicial powers to decide cases in his own cause. The representations sent to SC collegium can be accessed here

Read the Mail Today feature as M.C. Rajan in Chennai tracks Chief Justice Dinkaran's disproportionate property details and other instances of judicial misconduct while also detailing other judges caught in controversy... all of which exerting pressure on the need to lift the veil of secrecy over judicial appointments

The Delhi High Court ruled on 2nd September 2009, that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” within the meaning of the Right to Information Act and has to make public the information on assets declared to him by judges under the 1997 resolution of Chief Justices. The argument that such information has been collected under fiduciary capacity by the CJI was also held to be insubstantial.. The ruling by Justice Ravindra Bhat, which came on the Supreme Court's appeal against an almost identical order from the Central Information Commissioner (CIC), runs counter to the consistent stand of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan that the CJI could not be termed as a public authority under RTI Act

Running out rightly contrary to the refusal of Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court to publicly declare their assets, Justice, DV Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court, powerfully expresses his views against the Chief Justice of India speaking on behalf of the country’s judiciary as well as Justice Kumar’s right to express his views freely and without fear. His articles in the New Indian Express can be read here and here. Justice Kumars asset details as posted on a website can be accessed here.

Former Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani asserts that judges must disclose their assets to maintain public confidence in the courts more

The Law Commission of India, Chaired by Justice Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, in its REPORT NO. 230 focuses on REFORMS IN THE JUDICIARY, offering some suggestions. The report was submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Jusitce, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India by the Law Commission on the 5th of August, 2009. Copy of the report can be found