[ad_1]
The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court led by its Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi has stated {that a} single decide of the court docket should have not doubted the functioning of the vigilance wing in State judiciary with out ascertaining any details on that depend.
The Bench, additionally comprising Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, stated the vigilance wing of the High Court was very a lot alive to its tasks and it had initiated disciplinary motion towards as many as 39 judicial officers and court docket workers within the final one yr.
While dismissing a writ petition filed by advocate B. Sathishkumar with false averments that the High Court’s Registrar (Vigilance) R. Poornima had not handed greater secondary examinations, the judges referred to observations made by the one decide at its Madurai Bench.
The single decide had stated: “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 primary Division Bench stated the High Court had been responding to each difficult scenario on the executive aspect to the most effective of its capability and skill and it was evident from the statistics on motion initiated to date.
“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 stated.
Apart from imposing a price of ₹5 lakh on the advocate who had filed the case towards the Registrar (Vigilance), initiating felony contempt proceedings towards him and suspending him from practising legislation, the court docket determined to cope with the problem on its administrative aspect too.
The matter could be handled on the executive aspect 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.”
[ad_2]
