Judge should not have doubted functioning of vigilance wing: CJ
NEWS STATES TAMIL NADU
TAMIL NADU
Judge should not have doubted functioning of vigilance wing: CJ
The Madras High Court. File
The Madras High Court. File | Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam
Mohamed Imranullah S.
CHENNAI 14 OCTOBER 2020 02:57 IST
UPDATED: 14 OCTOBER 2020 04:30 IST
‘Action taken against 39 officers, staff’
The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court led by its Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi has said that a single judge of the court should have not doubted the functioning of the vigilance wing in State judiciary without ascertaining any facts on that count.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, said the vigilance wing of the High Court was very much alive to its responsibilities and it had initiated disciplinary action against as many as 39 judicial officers and court staff in the last one year.
While dismissing a writ petition filed by advocate B. Sathishkumar with false averments that the High Court’s Registrar (Vigilance) R. Poornima had not passed higher secondary examinations, the judges referred to observations made by the single judge at its Madurai Bench.
Advertising
Advertising
The single judge had said: “Undoubtedly, judiciary has to strengthen its vigilance wing and the prevailing vigilance system in the judiciary is insufficient to crush the corrupt practices. Frequent surprise visits and inspection in the judicial departments and premises are needed.
“It is pertinent to remind that many former Chief Justices of India had lamented that judiciary is not exempted from corrupt practices. Unfortunately, efficient measures are yet to be taken to deal with many kinds of corrupt practices in the judicial system.
‘Right spirit’
“If these observations are taken in a right spirit by the administrators, then alone we can see the development of our great nation. Thus, the administrator must have a heart and spirit to take the issues in a right manner.”
Disapproving of such observations, the first Division Bench said the High Court had been responding to every challenging situation on the administrative side to the best of its capacity and ability and it was evident from the statistics on action initiated so far.
“The public at large, therefore, need not be sounded on the capacity of the administrators to have a heart and a spirit to take effective steps to keep the stream of justice running pure. A general perception on any impulse may cause a doubt but it appears to be far from reality,” the Bench said.
Apart from imposing a cost of ₹5 lakh on the advocate who had filed the case against the Registrar (Vigilance), initiating criminal contempt proceedings against him and suspending him from practising law, the court decided to deal with the issue on its administrative side too.
The matter would be dealt with on the administrative side too “in order to keep the administration free from impediments that are likely to cause damage to the system on account of unnecessary publicity or veiled efforts made by either insiders or outsiders
