A woman lawyer alleging corruption by a sessions judge was directed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to approach the appropriate office. The bench said such matters cannot be entertained as a PIL.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court instructed a woman lawyer, who appeared in person to request the registration of offenses against a sessions judge in Punjab, to submit her complaint to the high court’s office.
A division bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the current petition was filed as a public interest litigation (PIL), primarily seeking to register various offenses against a judicial officer.
However, the court noted that allegations of corruption and misconduct by a judicial official cannot be addressed through judicial proceedings.
The court noted,
“The petitioner who appears in person contends that she is aggrieved by the alleged acts of indiscretion and illegality committed by the said judicial officer in a pending litigation before the said judicial officer,”
The bench further stated,
“The petitioner is free to file a written complaint with the office of this court duly supported by an affidavit against the said judicial officer, which if done within a period of 60 days from today, it shall be considered as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.”
During the hearing, the petitioner, Anju Bansal, asserted that the sessions judge issued a “fake order” without providing a case number and claimed that the judge was accepting bribes from lawyers to render favorable decisions.
The frustrated lawyer alleged that the woman sessions judge did not give her a fair hearing, stating,
“Are you trying to teach me law?”
She also accused the judge of threatening to issue adverse rulings against her.
Bansal complained to the court,
“It happens all the time,”
The court dismissed the plea with these instructions, assuring that substantiated allegations would be addressed appropriately.
Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has the power of control over subordinate judiciary, which includes disciplinary actions against judicial officers. This control includes the power to entertain complaints, hold inquiries, and take administrative decisions against judicial officers, ensuring that judicial independence is maintained, but also holding officers accountable.
Moreover, the in-house procedure laid down by the Supreme Court governs how complaints against judges (both higher and lower judiciary) are to be processed confidentially through the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
The court followed this principle by asking the lawyer to submit her grievance to the administrative side of the High Court instead of seeking judicial intervention through a PIL.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
