The case has once again highlighted very serious concerns about judicial accountability, and complete ambiguity with which the Supreme Court handles the judiciary cases.
For a long time, the lack of transparency in the judiciary along with the legal community has become disqualified within the big people. Unlike other constitutional officials, judges do not have any direct accountability for elected representatives or voters.
As a result, when corruption is reported ‘scams’, it is a dependent on the Supreme Court to provide immediate transparency about real facts, upcoming investigations and work done. However, as recent events have displayed, the Supreme Court has often decreased to achieve this ideal.
Even in this case, the loss had already been done by the Supreme Court released its ‘official’ version of the incidents.
The state is not required, judicial accountability should come from within the judiciary and not the executive. Political actors have everything to gain from the declining reputation of the judiciary: it is in fact, the institution that keeps a wrong executive in investigation. Any ‘inspection’ on its procedures by the judiciary and executive can risk targeting of independent judges. Despite this, the judiciary emphasizes maintaining a shroud of secrecy, providing credibility only for allegations of mercury behavior.
In this case, Supreme Court, Delhi High Court Bar, and Chief Justice Delhi High Court There was a need to work rapidly for your own agreement. It took a ‘scam’ of significant ratio to indicate them to offer any transparency about the investigation process.
