Supreme court on corruption

It refers to practical advice to Union government by a division-bench of Supreme Court to ?legalise? corruption by fixing rates of convenience-fees to save aam admi (common people) from hardships of bargaining bribe-amounts to get things done at government-offices. But someone bold in higher judiciary should give similar noble advice in respect of such incidents of misconduct, corruption etc in judicial system as well. A law can be enacted whereby persons may not be able to contest against cases patronised by judges of higher courts, and judges may be immunised from charges of misconduct. However to prevent misuse, such immunity may be for say two cases per annum for judges of High Courts and five for judges of Supreme Court!

It is a matter of shame that India had a Chief Justice who could not be considered for post of NHRC chairperson with Union government admitting adverse charges against him. My personal bitter experience is that the person misused his position as head of Indian judiciary by patronising misconduct in higher judiciary when he did not invoke even ?In-House? procedure on my documented complaint because charges of misconduct were against his personal friends in higher judiciary. Only God and no one in present Indian system can punish some such undesired elements having found entry in our otherwise honest judicial system!

Even Union government is bringing an eye-wash ?Judges Accountability Bill? with stringent frightening provisions for those daring to complain against judges involved in misconduct or corruption. Like rape has no witness, bribe has no proof, likewise approaches and influences cannot easily be proved by victims created due to possible misconduct in judicial system. At least all High Court judges must compulsorily be appointed from outside their home-states to minimise chances of influence through local relations and former bar colleagues.