Demanding probe against former chief justice
Friday, 10 August 2007
Amy Yee
THE allegations have thrown the spotlight on what critics see as the lack of accountability in India's judiciary, which is renowned for its plodding procedures, the impunity it grants sitting judges and a mounting backlog of cases.
Y.K. Sabharwal, who retired as chief justice early this year, led a panel that ruled that businesses in residential areas of Delhi should be "sealed", or shut. The supreme court ordered enforcement of a ban on illegal businesses even in areas that had become established and thriving business districts. In the sweeping "sealing drive" that resulted many businesses were forced to move to commercial complexes, which drove up rents in shopping malls.
According to the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an activist coalition that promotes transparency amongst judges, both of Mr Sabharwal's sons, who are involved in developing shopping malls, could possibly benefit from the decision.
"It was totally improper on his part to have heard the sealing case and passed orders in it, since his sons clearly stood to benefit from his orders," said the CJAR. "There was a serious conflict of interest in this case."
Mr Sabharwal could not be reached for comment. In recent years his two sons formed a construction business in partnership with the developer of Square 1 Mall, a new luxury complex in Delhi. They are also involved in other property development enterprises, according to official business documents circulated by the CJAR early this month.
"We have great regard for Justice Sabharwal. We were shocked when we came across these facts," said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer spearheading the campaign for judicial reform.
Mr Bhushan is one of India's best-known judicial activists. In the past he has filed public interest lawsuits, including one on behalf of an Indian telecommunications watchdog that alleged Hutchison Essar, India's fourth-largest mobile operator, had breached foreign direct investment limits when Vodafone, the UK mobile group, agreed to buy control for $11bn.
The CJAR claims that India lacks an effective disciplinary mechanism against judges "other than an unworkable system of impeachment".
Sitting judges are barred from criminal investigation and are virtually immune from public criticism because of contempt of court laws. Complaints cannot be filed against a sitting judge without permission from the chief justice.
Delhi's "sealing drive" created havoc last autumn. Tens of thousands of businesses went on strike to protest against the order and thousands of troops amassed in the capital to control riots that killed four.
In spite of pleas from state and local government and traders associations, the supreme court refused to budge on its order to close shops and clear hawkers from unauthorised areas.
.........................................
FT Syndication Service
THE allegations have thrown the spotlight on what critics see as the lack of accountability in India's judiciary, which is renowned for its plodding procedures, the impunity it grants sitting judges and a mounting backlog of cases.
Y.K. Sabharwal, who retired as chief justice early this year, led a panel that ruled that businesses in residential areas of Delhi should be "sealed", or shut. The supreme court ordered enforcement of a ban on illegal businesses even in areas that had become established and thriving business districts. In the sweeping "sealing drive" that resulted many businesses were forced to move to commercial complexes, which drove up rents in shopping malls.
According to the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, an activist coalition that promotes transparency amongst judges, both of Mr Sabharwal's sons, who are involved in developing shopping malls, could possibly benefit from the decision.
"It was totally improper on his part to have heard the sealing case and passed orders in it, since his sons clearly stood to benefit from his orders," said the CJAR. "There was a serious conflict of interest in this case."
Mr Sabharwal could not be reached for comment. In recent years his two sons formed a construction business in partnership with the developer of Square 1 Mall, a new luxury complex in Delhi. They are also involved in other property development enterprises, according to official business documents circulated by the CJAR early this month.
"We have great regard for Justice Sabharwal. We were shocked when we came across these facts," said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer spearheading the campaign for judicial reform.
Mr Bhushan is one of India's best-known judicial activists. In the past he has filed public interest lawsuits, including one on behalf of an Indian telecommunications watchdog that alleged Hutchison Essar, India's fourth-largest mobile operator, had breached foreign direct investment limits when Vodafone, the UK mobile group, agreed to buy control for $11bn.
The CJAR claims that India lacks an effective disciplinary mechanism against judges "other than an unworkable system of impeachment".
Sitting judges are barred from criminal investigation and are virtually immune from public criticism because of contempt of court laws. Complaints cannot be filed against a sitting judge without permission from the chief justice.
Delhi's "sealing drive" created havoc last autumn. Tens of thousands of businesses went on strike to protest against the order and thousands of troops amassed in the capital to control riots that killed four.
In spite of pleas from state and local government and traders associations, the supreme court refused to budge on its order to close shops and clear hawkers from unauthorised areas.
.........................................
FT Syndication Service