Abstract
The tenure of the post of the judiciary is such that there is a constitutional guarantee that no disciplinary action except removal is possible in respect of judges of the Supreme Court and High Court. The procedure for removal is way too complicated to be implemented. However, a situation analogous to removal consists in the non-regularisation of additional Judges. Their status is most precarious. They can be made permanent only at the pleasure of the Government. Another form of disguised punishment impairing the independence of Judges of the High Court is the possibility of their transfer. Transfer for a Judge who is in his fifties to another State where language, climatic conditions, food products may be extremely different, will put the transferred Judge to a considerable hardship and inconvenience. The Government and the judiciary have to live side by side. The acts of the former are subject to the review of the latter. But the latter depends on the former in various ways including financial and administrative instances. Remuneration of judicial officers is quite inadequate especially for those in the lower ranks. In order to reduce the effect of outside influences, one should have always a collegium of three judges, at least at the level of judgement, the trial being left to be conducted by a single judge.
Recommended Citation
Annoussami, David
(1994)
"What Ails the Judiciary?,"
National Law School Journal: Vol. 6:
Iss.
1, Article 11.
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsj/vol6/iss1/11