Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti on Wednesday refused to subscribe to a generalised assertion that judiciary is corrupt but conceded that rampant corruption in the society has not left the judiciary untouched.
While terming the Indian Judiciary as one of the best in the world, the new CJI said, "The judges are not sadhus and sanyasis and in spite of the high standards of morals and ethics expected of them, an rightly so, the fact cannot be denied that Judges, being human beings are the products of this very society.
"Spread of any epidemic (corruption included) would not and cannot leave the judges -- they being human beings -- untouched," he said when asked whether there was corruption in judiciary.
Referring to the Constitution, he said the high courts have enough power, including the supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts to deal with any deviations or aberrations in individual cases.
"In case of need, the criminal law can also be set in motion. Existing laws or rules, if found to be deficient in any manner, can always be supplemented and amended suitably," he added.
On the 'cash for warrants' scam where an Ahmedabad Court had issued warrants against the CJI and the President, Justice Lahoti said, "A cautious and vigilant high court led by an active chief justice can be enough deterrent to such incidents. We can always learn by experience and charter our course of action for the future."
The CJI said one or two stray incidents in the country would not justify a general observation that there was corruption in the high courts.
Asked about the role of the CJI and the Supreme Court in dealing with the alleged incidents of corruption among the high court judges, he cited the only case of impeachment in the last century where Parliament failed to take action.
"In the preceding century, while dealing with the only case of impeachment of a judge, it was not the judicial system but the Parliament which failed in carrying out the motion of impeachment, which had the support of the Supreme Court," Justice Lahoti said.
Realising the impossibility of impeachment of a judge requiring two-third majority vote in Parliament, the new CJI said, "If the Parliament feels by its experience of the past and the needs of the present that a better procedure can be devised, let there be a debate."
However, on a personal note he said he was not in favour of any procedure or mechanism, which deprives the judiciary and any of its constituents of its independence.
Favouring the present system of a judge being judged by the judges, he said, "In disciplinary jurisdiction, the procedure in several countries is that 'peers' alone should decide and not the Executive."
