Supreme Court:  JUDGES are Not  Employees or Peons

FNJPC  = ALL JUDGES; including LOWEST-of-Low , R Constitutional Functionaries like Ministers etc.,

15. We want to impress upon the Government that the debilitating effects of inadequate remuneration of the judges in the long run can only lead to worsening morale and eroding commitment to service. It is the universal experience that men and women who feel that they are underpaid for the demanding work they do, would generally suffer from low morale and declining sense of commitment to service. This is, indeed, happening in many State Judiciaries. The losers are, however, not the judges in the ultimate analysis, rather it is the public. The public have to go before courts for critical decisions in cases affecting law and order, cases that affect their civil and legal rights, cases involving their lives and liberties and cases relating to their welfare and their children’s welfare, etc.. We can ill-afford to entrust such cases in the hands of dissatisfied judges.
Click Here
15

16. "The laborer is worthy of his hire; and if you do not give him the wages of honesty, it is to be apprehended the wages of corruption may, in process of time, come to be sought."
Click Here 16
19. We are only trying to set the salary at a level that allows aspirants with modest backgrounds, and with family responsibilities, to accept the challenge of judicial service and a level that does not progressively penalize those dedicated individuals who choose to serve. We are trying to be fair to those who are making sacrifices – in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from community affairs – to serve the public.
Click Here 19

We R Employees: Adamantly admit Chief Justices of India +
Supreme Court Judges
+ Lok Ayuktas + High Court Chief Justices +
High
Court Judges 867 JUDGES  =
Are in Contempt Dock for various Crimes done = Bangalore SLUM.

But; Alas, JUDGES' inherent Lust, Corrupt Intents with Un-bridled Constitutional Privileges, Judges are ready to barter Courts & Judgments; for any Illegal Profits including Plots / Sites meant for "Karnataka State Employees".

 

867 FRAUD Judges:
Accept they are in-fact Employees of Karnataka Govt..
WHO JUDGES ?  From Chief Justice[s] of India  through High Court to Lok Ayukta + Law Secreatries  District Judges +  Magistrates across INDIA & State of Karnataka. 

But; Alas, JUDGES' inherent Lust, Corrupt Intents with Un-bridled Constitutional Privileges, Judges are ready to barter Courts & Judgments; for any Illegal Profits including Plots / Sites meant for "Karnataka State Employees".
In the process: They violated Every Law= They-Gave-Judgments & Secured Judgments  [501_00]

They Violated Every Judgment-They-secured. They Themselves Admit having Violated All Laws & Judgments:

JUDICIAL EVIDENCES:
"JUDGES claimed as Employees in "Employees' Housing Society"  
High Court:   ILR 1995 KAR 3139 held JUDGES R not Employees
   
 |  [High Court + Lokayukta + BDA + Members Docs] | High   Court   Unmasked | [40_02]  |  [BDA Report] |   [Contempt Petition]  |  [Contempt Orders] |  [SLP in Supreme Court]  |   [SLP Dismissed]

Lok Ayukta Evidences:
[Lok Ayukta-BDA 1999 Correspondence= JUDGES' SLUM] |  
[BDA Report:2005: Land Allowed to be developed by 867 Judges in violation of all LAWS]
Lokayukta ILLEGALLY Directed Layout to be Handed-over to CMC
Now Lokayukta Hushed-up Case is Resurfaced in High Court 

037.01

Karnataka Govt. Law Department's Annual Report showing Judges who are  employees.

 

 

K.S. Bakthavasalam &
M.F. Saldana

I . L . R .1995 KAR 3139 
[
W.P. 35837 of 1994. 12th Oct. 1995
[027.05]for scanned copy[027.05s]
]

(Paragraph 30)    Though we have held that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of Section 3(f) (vi ), We think it is necessary to deal with the other questions raised before us also. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that allotment of sites to Judges as members of the Society vitiates the acquisition. Some allegations are made in the Petition that certain Judges have given false declaration. We have gone through the applications of the Judges who have become members of the Society There is no column at all in the Application Form given to the High Court Judges who have become members of the Society asking whether he ( Member ) or any member of his family owns a house of site in Bangalore City. At the same time it is to be noted that such a column appears in the case of the Application Forms given to the members in the Subordinate Judiciary and there is also a declaration to be furnished. It is true two sets of Application Forms are used. As such, the allegations that Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court ( sitting, retired and transferred ) have given false declaration is absolutely baseless and it has been made in a reckless manner by the petitioners concerned. It has to be seen from the list furnished to us that certain members of the Subordinate Judiciary who became members of the Society have been later elevated to the High Court.
 

( 31 )      With regard to the allotment of sites to Judges, as We have stated above, We are of the opinion that this Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into that question. It is settled law that no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society as it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Clause -7 of the Bye-laws produced before us, as translated by the official translator, reads as follows:

( Page No. 3183 )

" 7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP :

Persons residing in Bangalore and interested in the development of this institution or those persons who are working in High Court or any Court coming under the jurisdiction of High Court, Bangalore and Society and the persons retired from the service and residing in the jurisdiction of the Society permanently (including Judges also) are eligible for the membership. Executive Committee (Panchayataru) is having full powers to accept or reject the applications received for membership."

A reading of Clause - 7 of the Bye-laws, in our by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain Judges have been allowed to become members of the Society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the Society. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Bye-laws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Co-operative society. Even otherwise if two views are possible on the construction of Clause-7 of the Bye-laws, as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 245 ( 25. AIR 1970 SC 245 ) , it is only for the guidance of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a law so that this Court can set aside the allotment made to the Judges, as contended by the petitioners.
For Complete Judgment
CLICK HERE:
[027.05]
For PHOTO Copy [027.05s]


REASONS:
Lust of  Judges is more than Politicians & Bureaucrats.  

Which Judges Claimed as Peons?


M.N. Venkatachaliah 
Former Chief Justice of India
Padma Bhooshan


S. Rajendra Babu
Former Chief Justice of India


M.R. Hegde
Election Commissioner
Formerly Law Secretary


N. Venkatachala
Karnataka Lok Ayukta
Supreme Court Judge, Retd.
 

 

Relevant extracts from Judgments of Supreme Court of India cited in Web Site of

"First National Judicial Pay Commission"
http://www.kar.nic.in/fnjpc    FNJPC [within CD]  Click Here

"There appears to be no such decision in any of the Commonwealth countries"

"The labourer is worthy of his hire; and if you do not give him the wages of honesty, it is to be apprehended the wages of corruption may, in process of time, come to be sought."

8. These deficiencies are indeed, insidious threat to the independence of the judicial system, though not to the independence of individual judges who operate the system. The independence of the legal system does not depend entirely on the independence of each individual judge. It also depends upon the manner in which the system is operated, and how judges are provided for. Some of these aspects have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges’ Association Case [All India Judges’ Association Case - AIR 1992 SC 165 and AIR 1993 SC at pages2493, 2510]. The Court observed:

  • " . . . . Under the Constitution, the judiciary is above the administrative executive and any attempt to place it on par with the executive has to be abandoned." . . . . "The judges are not employees and judicial service is not service in the sense of ‘employment’. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the Members of the Council of Ministers and the Members of the Legislature."


  • " . . . . . The service conditions of the judges should not be linked to those of the executives and the service conditions of the judges have to be revised to meet the special needs of the judicial service." . . . . . "The Judicial officers throughout the country perform the work of the same nature and, therefore, their service conditions have to be uniform and it should be examined by a separate Commission and the State should not make a grievance if their service conditions are improved." . . . . . "The exertions involved in the duties of the Judge cannot be compared with the duties of other services and the judicial service by its very nature stands on a different footing and should be treated as such."

    9. The decision of the Supreme Court3 has given a new life support to the subordinate judiciary of this country.  There appears to be no such decision in any of the Commonwealth countries, except a recent judgment4 of the Canadian Supreme Court, in which it was observed that it is imperative to have a "judicial compensation commission" for provincial court judges in order to protect the courts from political interference. It was also observed that the Commission must be independent, objective and effective to determine the judicial remuneration.

    10. The involvement of an independent Commission is likely to promote the independence of judiciary. It provides a forum in which the members of the


    1. Re. In the matter of a reference from the Lt. Governor in Council regarding the Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Courts dt. 18 September 1997.

     

    judiciary can fearlessly raise concerns about their conditions of service which they could not have raised at the bargaining table with the Executive or the Legislature.

    11. Moreover, the Commission like this serves as an institutional sieve which protects the Courts from political interference through economic manipulation, a danger which inheres in salary negotiation..

    12. The Judiciary’s reliance upon Government for periodic increases in remuneration entails an obvious potential for impairment of judicial independence. As the Chief Justice of South Australia has noted5:

    "Those who control the purse strings will always have some capacity to influence the actions of those who are dependent upon the contents of the purse . . . . . . There can be no doubt that executive government control over judicial salary fixation is always at least an incipient threat to judicial independence."

    As a Canadian Judge6 put it more bluntly:

    "When you are reduced to begging for a decent salary, how can you be truly independent."

    13. This Commission, by survey of the subordinate courts, has found that there is a large scale dissatisfaction in the Subordinate Judiciary all over the country.

    14. The major cause for this dissatisfaction appears to be the burgeoning judicial work-load and the financial pressure due to inadequate compensation.

    15. We want to impress upon the Government that the debilitating effects of inadequate remuneration of the judges in the long run can only lead to worsening

    5. See: Report of the Remuneration Tribunal of Common Wealth of Australia, 1997, p.33.

    6. Judge Francois-Beaudoil, President of the Conference des juges due Qucboc.

    morale and eroding commitment to service. It is the universal experience that men and women who feel that they are underpaid for the demanding work they do, would generally suffer from low morale and declining sense of commitment to service. This is, indeed, happening in many State Judiciaries. The losers are, however, not the judges in the ultimate analysis, rather it is the public. The public have to go before courts for critical decisions in cases affecting law and order, cases that affect their civil and legal rights, cases involving their lives and liberties and cases relating to their welfare and their children’s welfare, etc.. We can ill-afford to entrust such cases in the hands of dissatisfied judges.

    16. It is, indeed, appropriate to recall the warning given by Senator Henry Clay during the debate in the House of Representatives7:

    "The laborer is worthy of his hire; and if you do not give him the wages of honesty, it is to be apprehended the wages of corruption may, in process of time, come to be sought."

    17. Therefore, improving the service conditions of our judges is not in the interest of judges alone, but in the interest of sound and efficient administration of justice as well. That would ultimately benefit all of us and more so the Government, because the Government is a litigant in 60 per cent of cases that come before courts.

    18. There is yet another aspect. The vast moral authority of courts in our system is bound up in the public mind with the visible adjunct of those who dispense justice, including certain way of living and the manner in which they commute to courts. This concern was illustrated well by a 1949 memorandum from three English Country Court Judges, complaining about low salary8:


    7. The Annals of Congress report the following debate in the House of Representatives in March 1816, between Henry Clay (Whig Party, 1815-1821) and John C. Calhoun (War Democrat, 1811-1817).

    8. Independence of Judiciary: The view from the Lord Chancellor’s office, By Robert Stevense, p. 121.

  • "If judges have to live in mean houses, wear cheap clothes . . . . not only would their work suffer by reason of their mental discomfort but the present high estimation in which the judiciary is everywhere held would also suffer. If the members of the judiciary are not regarded with respect, their impartiality will, such is human nature, come to be doubted. . . . ."

  • 19. In urging to boost judicial salaries, we by no means are suggesting that salaries should be set at a level of the income of the most prosperous and successful advocates. We are only trying to set the salary at a level that allows aspirants with modest backgrounds, and with family responsibilities, to accept the challenge of judicial service and a level that does not progressively penalise those dedicated individuals who choose to serve. We are trying to be fair to those who are making sacrifices – in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from community affairs – to serve the public.               FNJPC in this CD Click Here

    20. There is no better way to sum up our aim and object than to put it in the wise words of Churchill9:

    "Our aim is not to make our judges wealthy men, but to satisfy their needs to maintain a modest but dignified way of life suited to the gravity, and indeed, the majesty, of the duties they discharge."

    21. These are the principal reasons with which we have suggested certain emoluments to judicial officers. After all, we do not spend much on our judiciary. The expenditure on judiciary in our country in terms of GNP is relatively low. It is not more than 0.2 per cent. In Korea, it is more than 0.2 per cent; in Singapore,


    9. Ibid 4, p. 127. 

    it is 1.2 per cent; in U.K. it is 4.3 per cent; and in U.S.A. it is 1.4 per cent.10 Unlike in the other departments of the Government, more than half of the amount which is spent on Indian Judiciary is raised from the Judiciary itself through collection of court fees, stamp duty and miscellaneous matters. Therefore, any increase in the salary structure of the Judicial Officers cannot be considered as a burden to the State.

    22. That is one aspect. The other aspect relates to the public criticism regarding the functioning of the judiciary. The public criticism includes among others, the delay in disposal of cases; unsatisfactory judgments and creeping corruption in some quarters. The judiciary cannot afford to be indifferent to these criticisms. The costs of providing justice is like other calls on the public revenues. All persons and departments who utilise the public revenue are accountable to the public. The judges cannot be an exception to this recognised principle. They are equally accountable for their acts and omissions both on the Bench and off the Bench. It is, therefore, necessary for judges, individually and collectively, to ensure that no such criticism is levelled against them or against the system.                        FNJPC in this CD Click Here