LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


 8 Replies

Preetika Aggarwal (Student)     07 June 2009

Hello all,

For making a corruption free India, first of all, we should improve ourself. We should follow all the rules & regulations of law becoz corruption is spreading through us, when we break any rule, then firstly we try to escape from punishment, by offering the money to the public servents, spl. to the Indian Police.

If we perform our duties, then Indian will automatically improve.

yogita (student)     07 June 2009

I think people in the judiciary have the max resposibility to stop corruption. There have been so many cases in the recent past about judiciary being a part of the corrupt system or network or working on the instructions of the influential persons. I think law students, lawyers and judges should take the FIRST STEP to drive out corruption and preach the way of SATHYA AND AHINSA.

aatma   09 June 2009

Report from  2005 Report from the Transparency International India


The former Chief Justice of Supreme Court Sam Piroj Bharucha had observed that “up to 20 per cent of judges in India were corrupt.”

Is Judiciary Corrupt?
More than three-fourths (79%) of the respondents, who had been interacting with the judiciary, admitted that corruption was prevalent in the Department. Surprisingly, only 8% of those respondents felt that there was ‘no corruption’ in Judiciary. However, not much difference is seen in perception of corruption in judiciary for states having different strength of judiciary.

Experience of Corruption in Judiciary

While 38% of the respondents had experienced corruption every time they had interacted with judiciary, 53% had experienced it some time or the other. On the other hand, only 5% never experienced corruption.

Modus operandi for Bribing

During the last one year, three-fifths (59%) of respondents had paid money to lawyer, whereas 30% had paid money to court officials, and 14% to middle men to get their work done. There were higher number of respondents claiming to have paid bribe to court officials in states having low judicial strength compared to respondents from states having high judicial strength.

Table 9.10: Money Paid

Judicial Strength Wise
(Figures in per cent)
Money Recipient High Medium Low Total
Judge 06 04 04 05
Lawyer 55 64 53 59
Court officials 17 26 44 30
Public Prosecutor 17 05 08 08
Middlemen 17 12 16 14
Note Multiple answers.

Lawyers, who are supposed to uphold law, have ended being conduit for corruption as if there is no monitoring or initiatives on the part of bodies like bar associations. They could put up notice boards to file complaints or give telephone number for passing on information against corrupt lawyers. There is not a single case of a lawyer being suspended for practice on account of such complaints or any effort made to get such corrupt practices enquired into independently. Although cases about delays and even prevalence of corruption in judiciary have been reported, media has never reported giving specific examples of corruption by lawyers.

1 Like





                                                               RAJ KISHORE VAISH



girishankar (manager)     15 January 2010

Fw: [IHRO] Judicial misconduct

[IHRO] Judicial misconduct

Saturday, September 05, 2009 3:02:32 PM
"psn.1946" <psn.1946@gmail.com>
"IHRO" <IHRO@yahoogroups.com>,

Tehelka magazine and Adv Prashant Bhushan have thrown a chllenge.

The named justices must prosecute the magazine and Bhushan.

Or they must ask CJI to institute an enquiry to bring out the truth.

Keeping a stony silence in spite the grave allegations will only undermine
the reputation of judges as a whole.

Justice Kapadia's misconduct in Vedanta case [Orissa-Niyamgiri mines]
was highlighted by late Rajendra Sarangi and he challenged the judge
to initiate contempt proceedings against him.

Sankar Narayanan


From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 35, Dated September 05, 2009:-

CURRENT AFFAIRS        judiciary

‘Half Of The Last 16 Chief Justices Were Corrupt’

The decision to declare assets is a big victory. Supreme Court lawyer
Prashant Bhushan tells SHOMA CHAUDHURY what else is rotting in our

It’s great judges have agreed to declare assets. But will it really
help? Politicians do it too.

This decision is very welcome, even if it’s only happened under public
pressure. It is proof of the power of public opinion. And even though
declaring assets is a relatively minor aspect of judicial
accountability, it will help. If a judge misdeclares his assets,
there’s a chance someone might know he has particular properties he
hasn’t declared, and may point it out. One could then examine if these
can be explained within their legal income.

The debate around judicial accountability has got really hot. Are
there watershed events that triggered this?

Not in my own perception, but I think for the public there were two
watershed events – the Chief Justice Sabharwal case (where there was
an allegation that Chief Justice YS Sabharwal’s orders to demolish
commercial outlets in Delhi directly benefited his sons, who were
partners with some mall developers) and the Ghaziabad Provident Fund
scam. Both these cases got wide media attention. A 2006 Transparency
International report said the judiciary in India is the second most
corrupt institution after the police.

You’ve been at the forefront of the judicial accountability campaign. Why?

I have been witness to judicial corruption in the courts for a very
long time. I know decisions are passed for extraneous considerations,
but it’s difficult to get hard evidence of this. There have been
highprofile impeachment attempts, for instance, on Justice Ramaswamy,
Justice Punchi and Justice Anand. Yet, they all went on to become
chief justices. In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 chief justices,
half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence
against Punchi, Anand and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought
their impeachment.

What is the root cause of judicial corruption then, and what are your
key demands?

Our key demand is an institutional mechanism for entertaining
complaints and taking action against the judiciary. Nothing exists
today. Everyone realises impeachment is impractical. To move an
impeachment motion you need the signatures of 100 MPS, but you can’t
get them because many MPs have pending individual or party cases in
these judges’ courts. In the impeachment proceeding against Justice
Bhalla, the BJP declined to sign because LK Advani had been acquitted
by him in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Such political
considerations prevail all the time. An in-house procedure was set up
in 1999, post a chief justices’ conference in 1997, but that too is
activated only selectively. For example, the complaint against Justice
Bhalla was that he had purchased land worth Rs 4 crore at Rs 4 lakh —
approximately — from land mafia in Noida. This was based on a report
from the DM and SSP of Noida. This land mafia had several cases
pending in courts subordinate to Justice Bhalla. Another complaint was
that in the Reliance Power matter, though his son was the lawyer for
Reliance Power, Justice Bhalla constituted a special bench while he
was the presiding judge in Lucknow. He sat in the house of one the
judges at 11pm at night to hear their case and pass an injunction in
their favour. We asked Chief Justice Sabharwal to initiate proceedings
against Bhalla, but he refused.

Similarly, Justice Vijender Jain decided the case of a person whose
granddaughter had been married out of his own house. He was a close
friend but he still heard and decided the case in this person’s
favour. The point is, in these cases though very specific complaints
were made to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), he didn’t do
anything to activate the in-house procedure. All these judges have
gone on to become chief justices. Bhalla is still chief justice of
Rajasthan; Virendra Jain became chief justice of Punjab and Haryana.

What’s the answer?

The first problem is that there is no independent institution for
entertaining complaints and taking action against judges. There has to
be a National Judicial Complaints Commission — independent of the
government and judiciary. It should have five members and an
investigating machinery under them. The second problem lies in the
Veeraswamy judgment, which ordered no criminal investigation can be
done against a judge without prior written permission of the CJI.
That’s what happened in Karnataka. There was a complaint against
several judges visiting a motel and misbehaving with women. When the
police officer came, the judges threatened him and said no FIR could
be filed against them because they were judges. This happened in the
Ghaziabad Provident Fund case as well. The investigation is stumped
because the CJI hasn’t given permission. We have to get rid of this

The third problem is the Contempt of Court Act. Today, even if you
expose a judge with evidence, you run the risk of contempt. Judges are
even seeking to insulate themselves from the RTI. We have to get rid
of the Contempt of Court Act – not the whole Act. Disobeying the
orders of the court is civil contempt – that should remain.
Interfering with the administration of justice is criminal contempt –
that too should remain. What needs to be deleted is the clause about
scandalising or lowering the dignity of the court, for which Arundhati
Roy was sent to jail. Finally, there is the problem of appointments.
Earlier, judicial appointments were made by the government, which was
bad enough. Now, by a sleight of hand, the Supreme Court has taken the
power of appointments to itself. Earlier there were political
considerations; now there are nepotistic ones.

Again, what’s the answer to that?

We need an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which is
independent and works full time, and follows some systems and
procedures. Eligibility lists should be prepared and comparative
merits debated and evaluated. You can’t just pick judges arbitrarily,
and let people know about it only after the deed is done.

There is still no independent body to process complaints and action
against judges
What are the best practices and conventions elsewhere?

We should at least have Public Confirmation hearings like in the US.
In the Senate Judicial Committee, you have hearings where any public
citizen can give evidence about the background of a judge that has
bearing on their appointment. This is being fiercely resisted here.

Do any counter arguments hold?

None that I can see. The judges say all this will compromise their
independence. Unfortunately, they are equating the independence of the
judiciary with independence from accountability. Independence of the
judiciary was meant to be independence from the political
establishment, not from all accountability.

Are there other ways in which judicial corruption manifests itself?

There are so many. There is Justice Kapadia who decided on the
Niyamgiri mining lease case in Orissa. He said Vedanta can’t be given
the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the Norwegian government;
but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease because it is a
publicly listed company. Justice Kapadia said it’s publicly listed
because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in favour of
Sterlite! There is a law against judges hearing cases where there is a
conflict of interest, but they just bypass it and you can’t complain
because that would be contempt.


International Human Rights Organisation (IHRO), of the Indian subcontinent, is a NGO, with national focus and overseas lobby network. It agitates both in India and internationally. Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:


girishankar (manager)     15 January 2010

(is yahoogroups timepass ?) Re: Hang Corrupt Ministers, Bureaucrats   Message List  
var ygrp_p = new yg_cookie(); function set_gmp(p){ if (p == "") ygrp_p.remove("GMP"); else ygrp_p.set("GMP",p); } function clear_gmp() { ygrp_p.remove("GMP"); } var ygrp_ck = new yg_cookie(); var envPref = ygrp_ck.get('GMI'); function pref(){ if (envPref){ // if pref is open msgInfo(); // toggle the display, default is close } // otherwise, don't do anything default is close getDocumentCharset(); } function getDocumentCharset() { var charset = (typeof document.charset == "undefined" || document.charset == null) ? document.characterSet : document.charset; var msxml = ['Microsoft.XMLHTTP','MSXML2.XMLHTTP.5.0','MSXML2.XMLHTTP.4.0','MSXML2.XMLHTTP.3.0','MSXML2.XMLHTTP']; var http;try{http=new XMLHttpRequest();}catch(e){for(var i=0;i

Reply | Forward   Message #14062 of 42002 < Prev | Next >


Do u think we the people are wasting our time in these yahoo groups, i dont think so. Think about this, after discussing for years in yahoogroups i have started to see the stark difference between whats been reported in the news papers and what we are talking about. So u see, if what we just talked about LAWYERS, if this gets printed in news papers , then there will be major changes in laws or atleast people will know what is important that needs to be changed to reduce crimes.

But since news reporters dont join our groups (which shows what they are there for) we will have to wait for some real patriot reporters to come across our ideas and print them in national news papers; so ineffect we are part responsible for the change. The point is atleast we know what needs to be done and when we get chance we can seize it. Without discussions we would never know what are the solutions to the problems. So the answer to your worry is to first find out for sure what the problems are and the solution to them and then hold people accountable for not implementing them or not printing them in news papers.

- saint scientist

karthickeyan ramanujam <karthickkaru@...> wrote:
Hang means how can we hang?
In what way we can hang. Our judicial system is so absurd and we
cant expect justice for the layman. We should reconstitute our
judiciary.  There should be renaissance for that. Now the
persons who rule and administrate comes from where and how can we
cure this?  They really won have ideology and won know about their
duty.  How can we rectify?

----- Original Message ----
From: Logically Genius


This is an interesting point; why shouldnt the lawyer not be considered guilty, if he is helping a murderer even after knowing his sin. If any such a laws are passed against the lawyers, Evil will get reduced by half within a week.

Gope Lalwani <gopelalwani@ yahoo.co. in> wrote:
 Ravinder Singh Says:                   
                   " But to me the quickest procedure would be
                     to convict the criminals holding top positions
                     in parliament, executive and most importantly
                     the judiciary".

Ravinder Singh <progressindia2008@ yahoo.com> wrote:
Hang Corrupt Ministers, Bureaucrats & Judges
Yesterday was a very eventful day. First Prashant Bhushan organized a seminar on “Securing Judicial Accountability” and later K.C. Agarwal emphasized the need for “New Constitution” that elects qualified professionals.
I am not inclined to support piecemeal or baby steps to address the menace of corruption that need giant effort and long term program to introduce new constitution when our problem is India has not convicted high profile criminals in politics, executive and judiciary when they deserved to hanged for treason or high fraud.
Criminals let of by judiciary undertake take bigger crimes.
But to me the quickest procedure would be to convict the criminals holding top positions in parliament, executive and most importantly the judiciary.
When GOI buys Bofors Gun at two three times the market price, as some generals said was good and performed in the battle field but the minister who approved it corrupted and scandalized the Army Of India in matters of purchase of equipments. Such ministers must be hanged. Same goes for Satendra Dubey Murder Case.
Likewise judges who fail to convict forgers in Foddar Scam case when it was clear on first sight but actually wanted to “Prolong The Case” to politically keep Laloo Under Check should be hanged.
Some of the judges are already in favor of “Hang the Corrupt from the Lamp Post”.
Law to provide for special bench for speedy and deterrent punishment under non stop live trial can be introduced.
Ravinder Singh October14, 2007

Hang The Corrupt Judges First

There is no denying corruption is widespread in India but judiciary is no less corrupt. A law to convict corrupt judges is yet to be introduced.
First we have to clean the judiciary that has failed to convict criminals in most of the cases brought before it.
When an officer has approved “Fake Documents” or “Incorrectly Recorded Public Works” or “Connived In Selling Properties On Forged Documents”, the courts should come out with judgment in first or second hearings.
In the following case one or two fake vouchers in hundred could be tolerable but in fodder scam cases in many times up to 100% documents were fake and forged.
Corrupt who mislead courts and file false affidavits should be charged additionally.
It is not within the powers of even the Supreme Court to hang corrupt from the lamppost but it is perfectly legal to sanction five years jail term for corruption and two years for false affidavit.
The judge who acquitted Manu Sharma and expressed his in ability to convict him is promoted to the High Court against the unprecedented opposition of the President.
How a person unfit for Sessions Court is considered suitable for High Court?
Ravinder Singh March09, 2007
Hang the corrupt, fumes Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Bihar 's fodder scam case may be stuck in the tortuous legal process but the multi-crore loot of public money involving influential politicians still manages to get the judiciary's goat.

This was evident when the bail petition of one of the government officials convicted in the case came up before the Supreme Court.

"Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamp post," said a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju, which was hearing a bail petition filed by fodder scam accused Braj Bhushan Prasad, convicted by the trial court.

Justice Katju, from whom the remarks flowed, was aware of the limitation of the court in view of the rule of law that governed the country. "The law does not permit us to do it, but otherwise we would prefer to hang the corrupt," he said.

To lessen the ire of the Bench against his client, counsel R Singh said that Prasad was a mere pawn in the big game as he was only a budget accounts officer.

It failed to impress the court. Justice Katju continued in the same vein and said that as budget accounts officer, he was supposed to keep track of the spending but he had abdicated his duties as alleged by the prosecution.

Such was the anger of the Bench that it not only dismissed Prasad's bail plea but refused to accede to his request for a direction to the Jharkhand High Court for early disposal of his appeal against conviction in the fodder scam case.

Bhushan was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by a special court in Jharkhand.

Statutory Warning : Capitalism is injurious to Nations Health

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     20 January 2010

At least we can raise our voice for the change. Judicial activism is due to public pressure, and growing concern about this.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register