SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

IT IS A FORUM TOWARDS PROTECTING THE CIVIL , HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OPPRESSED - DALITS , MINORITIES & TRIBALS.The Criminal - Police - Politician - Judge - Criminals Nexus is trying to silence me in many ways. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA together with jurisdictional police & District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Secure Mail : Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

PIL - Code of Conduct for Judges & Police

S.O.S   e - Clarion  Of  Dalit  -  Weekly  Newspaper  On  Web 
Working  For  The  Rights  &  Survival  Of  The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.41…… .19 / 10 / 2016

Editorial :  Urgent  Need  of   CODE  OF  CONDUCT  FOR   POLICE  &  JUDGES  IN  INDIA
   The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all  his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught  , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage.  even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.  just think , if a judge himself that too  of apex court of the land  himself  commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
 it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically  must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.
   Day after day we are seeing allegations against judges and police  in crimes against women , sex crimes , judicial orders for money , etc  in the media.  There is total secrecy in the functioning of judiciary in india  with regards to disciplinary proceedings , promotions  and selection of judges.  We the public don’t know whether proper investigation / enquiry is done in such cases of allegations against judges & police  , what action taken against the guilty judges & police ?
Read  few  actual cases of crimes by judges at following web pages ;
Half of former CJIs Corrupt :
Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND
JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

RTI & Land Golmaal

Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges

   Hereby , we demand  code of conduct for judges and police  with  provision of  criminal prosecution of  violators.  
Regard for the public welfare is the highest law (SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX).
 No man shall be condemned unheard (AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM).
No man can be judge in his own cause (NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA).
 An act of the Court shall prejudice no man (ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT).

Your’s
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

PIL  -   CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES & POLICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.         OF    2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R
editor ,  SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
....Petitioner

Versus
1.      Chief Justice of India
2.      Union Home Secretary , GOI
3.      Union Law & Justice Secretary , GOI
4.      Chief Secretaries of all states & UTs  
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226  and other relevant  acts  OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1.       Facts of the case:
    The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others , public  to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all  his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught  , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage.  even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.  just think , if a judge himself that too  of apex court of the land  himself  commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
 it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically  must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.
     Day after day we are seeing allegations against judges and police  in crimes against women , sex crimes , judicial orders for money , etc  in the media.  There is total secrecy in the functioning of judiciary in india  with regards to disciplinary proceedings , promotions  and selection of judges.  We the public don’t know whether proper investigation / enquiry is done in such cases of allegations against judges & police  , what action taken against the guilty judges & police ?
Read  few  actual cases of crimes by judges at following web pages ;
Half of former CJIs Corrupt :
Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND
JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

RTI & Land Golmaal

Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges

   Hereby , we demand  code of conduct for judges and police  with  provision of  criminal prosecution of  violators.  

Regard for the public welfare is the highest law (SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX).
 No man shall be condemned unheard (AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM).
No man can be judge in his own cause (NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA SUA CAUSA).
 An act of the Court shall prejudice no man (ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT).

2. Question(s) of Law:
Are JUDGES  & POLICE above law ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice and legal prosecution of guilty judges, police  to uphold rule of law in india.  
I wish to state you humbly that the United States Courts have framed the following rules for judges:-
CANON 1: A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
 COMMENTARY
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code.
Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

C. Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
COMMENTARY
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness toserve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Canon 2B. Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial. A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require. This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.
A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.
A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office. A judge should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request. Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship.
Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited.

CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
.A Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3)A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested. A judge may:
(a) initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;
(b) when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;
(c) obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or
(d) with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.
(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.
Administrative Responsibilities. (1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.
(2) A judge should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge. (3) A judge should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, nepotism, and favoritism. A judge should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.
(4) A judge with supervisory authority over other judges should take reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their duties timely and effectively.
(5) A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.
Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.
(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.
(3) or the purposes of this section:
(a) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives;

(b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities;
(d) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.
(4) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.
.D
Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. The judge may participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate. The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.



The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.

Canon 3A(4). The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding. A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.

A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.

Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3A(6). The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete. If the public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A. A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).

Canon 3B(3). A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection.

Canon 3B(5). Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program. Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 3C(1)(c). In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy. A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.
CANON 4: A JUDGE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.
.A Law-related Activities.
(1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
(2) Consultation. A judge may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official:
on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;
(b) to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area; or
(c) when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.
(3) Organizations. A judge may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds. A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
(4) Arbitration and Mediation. A judge should not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the judge’s official duties unless expressly authorized by law.
(5) Practice of Law. A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.

.B Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations:
(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
(2) A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.
.C Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
Financial Activities.
(1) A judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.
(2) A judge may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family. For this purpose, “members of the judge’s family” means persons related to the judge or the judge’s spouse within the third degree of relationship as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a), any other relative with whom the judge or the judge’s spouse maintains a close familial relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing.
(3) As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.
(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.
(5) A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.
.E Fiduciary Activities. A judge may serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family as defined in Canon 4D(4). As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions:
(1) The judge should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the judge would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) While acting as a fiduciary, a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to the judge in a personal capacity.
F. Governmental Appointments. A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or if appointment of a judge is required by federal statute. A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A judge may represent the judge’s country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities.
G. Chambers, Resources, and Staff. A judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities permitted by this Canon.

H. Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting. A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:
(1) Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.
(2) Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.
(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

COMMENTARY

Canon 4. Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that the judge’s time permits and impartiality is not compromised, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law. Subject to the same limitations, judges may also engage in a wide range of non-law-related activities.

Within the boundaries of applicable law (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 953) a judge may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges anywhere in the world if the judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution is occasioned by conflict between the professional responsibilities of the persecuted judge or lawyer and the policies or practices of the relevant government.

A person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship should be considered a member of the judge’s family for purposes of legal assistance under Canon 4A(5), fund raising under Canon 4C, and family business activities under Canon 4D(2).

Canon 4A. Teaching and serving on the board of a law school are permissible, but in the case of a for-profit law school, board service is limited to a nongoverning advisory board.

Consistent with this Canon, a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.

Canon 4A(4). This Canon generally prohibits a judge from mediating a state court matter, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., when a judge is mediating a federal matter that cannot be resolved effectively without addressing the related state court matter).

Canon 4A(5). A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with governmental bodies. In so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family.

Canon 4B. The changing nature of some organizations and their exposure to litigation make it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if the judge’s continued association is appropriate. For example, in many jurisdictions, charitable hospitals are in court more often now than in the past.
Canon 4C. A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and designations are listed for others.

Canon 4D(1), (2), and (3). Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small. Canon 4D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Canon 4H requires a judge to report compensation received for activities outside the judicial office. A judge has the rights of an ordinary citizen with respect to financial affairs, except for limitations required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties. A judge’s participation in a closely held family business, while generally permissible, may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves. Owning and receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge’s duties.

Canon 4D(5). The restriction on using nonpublic information is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge’s household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge’s family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge’s family.

The Applicable Date of Compliance provision of this Code addresses continued service as a fiduciary.

A judge’s obligation under this Code and the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary may come into conflict. For example, a judge should resign as a trustee if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest holdings whose retention would require frequent disqualification of the judge in violation of Canon 4D(3).

Canon 4F. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Canon 4H. A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation. That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation. The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”

CANON 5: A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY

A. General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

B. Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

C. Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.
Part-time Judge

A part-time judge is a judge who serves part-time, whether continuously or periodically, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time judge. A part-time judge:

(1) is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3);

(2) except as provided in the Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Part-time Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to that court’s appellate jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.
B. Judge Pro Tempore
A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge or as a special master.
(1) While acting in this capacity, a judge pro tempore is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4D(3), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3); further, one who acts solely as a special master is not required to comply with Canons 4A(3), 4B, 4C, 4D(4), or 5.

(2) A person who has been a judge pro tempore should not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.
C. Retired Judge
A judge who is retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d), or who is recalled to judicial service, should comply with all the provisions of this Code except Canon 4F, but the judge should refrain from judicial service during the period of an extrajudicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 4F. All other retired judges who are eligible for recall to judicial service (except those in U.S. territories and possessions) should comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges. A senior judge in the territories and possessions must comply with this Code as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 373(c)(5) and (d).

Applicable Date of Compliance

Persons to whom this Code applies should arrange their financial and fiduciary affairs as soon as reasonably possible to comply with it and should do so in any event within one year after appointment. If, however, the demands on the person’s time and the possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial, such a person may continue to act, without compensation, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary for the estate or person of one who is not a member of the person’s family if terminating the relationship would unnecessarily jeopardize any substantial interest of the estate or person and if the judicial council of the circuit approves.
Therefore, I understand that similar provisions be made for the Judges of the Hon’ble Courts, and the Rules be strictly adhered by the Judges of the Hon’ble Court.



4. Averment:
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the  government of india and constitutional bench of supreme court of india  to enact /  codify laws  governing both official actions , private actions  of judges from munsiff level to supreme court of india.. it must also cover quasi judicial officers like  police , revenue inspectors , excise inspectors , district collectors who perform quasi judicial functions. The law must have provision for legal prosecution of violators , guilty judges, guilty police  &  their removal from office.
 That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
 a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the  Government of India , all state governments and union terrirtories   constitution bench of supreme court of india , to enact laws / codify rules governing  judges  , police & quasi judicial officers  with regards to their actions both official & private.
b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Dated :  10th  october  2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….            PETITIONER-IN-PERSON



MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
GUIDELINES TO THE INDIAN POLICE
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE POLICE IN INDIA

The guidelines for the code of conduct for the police were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and communicated to Chief Secretaries of all States/ Union Territories and Heads of Central Police Organizations on July 4, 1985.
1. The police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it.

2. The police should not question the propriety or necessity of any law duly enacted. They should enforce the law firmly and impartially, without fear or favor, malice or vindictiveness.

3. The police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary and sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals and punish the guilty.

 4. In securing the observance of law or in maintaining order, the police should as far as practicable, use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning. When the application of force becomes inevitable, only the irreducible minimum of force required in the circumstances should be used.

5. The prime duty of the police is to prevent crime and disorder and the police must recognize that the test of their efficiency is the absence of both and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

 6. The police must recognize that they are members of the public, with the only difference that in the interest of the society and on its behalf they are employed to give full time attention to duties, which are normally incumbent on every citizen to perform.

7. The police should realize that the efficient performance of their duties would be dependent on the extent of ready cooperation that they receive from the public. This, in turn, will depend on their ability to secure public approval of their conduct and actions and to earn and retain public respect and confidence.

 8. The police should always keep the welfare of the people in mind and be sympathetic and considerate towards them. They should always be ready to offer individual service and friendship and render necessary assistance to all without regard to their wealth and / or social standing.

9. The police should always place duty before self, should maintain calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others.

10. The police should always be courteous and well mannered; they should be dependable and impartial; they should possess dignity and courage; and should cultivate character and the trust of the people.

11. Integrity of the highest order is the fundamental basis of the prestige of the police. Recognizing this, the police must keep their private lives scrupulously clean, develop self-restraint and be truthful and honest in thought and deed, in both personal and official life, so that the public may regard them as exemplary citizens.

12. The police should recognize that their full utility to the State is best ensured only by maintaining a high standard of discipline, faithful performance of duties in accordance with law and implicit obedience to the lawful directions of commanding ranks and absolute loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in the state of constant training and preparedness.

13. As members of a secular, democratic state, the police should strive continually to rise above personal prejudices and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and disadvantaged sections of society.


Police Corruption is a specific form of police misconduct designed to obtain financial benefits and / or career advancement for a police officer or officers in exchange for not pursuing, or selectively pursuing, an investigation or arrest. One common form of police corruption is soliciting and / or accepting bribes in exchange for not reporting organized drug or prostitution rings or other illegal activities. Another example is police officers flouting the police code of conduct in order to secure convictions of suspects — for example, through the use of falsified evidence. More rarely, police officers may deliberately and systematically participate in organized crime themselves.

Police & Human Rights
http://nhrc.nic.in/ignou/EUnit3/Unit_3.pdf 

OHCHR  UNITED NATIONS

Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials



Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979

Article 1
Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession.
Commentary :
(a) The term "law enforcement officials", includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention.
(b) In countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities, whether uniformed or not, or by State security forces, the definition of law enforcement officials shall be regarded as including officers of such services.
(c) Service to the community is intended to include particularly the rendition of services of assistance to those members of the community who by reason of personal, economic, social or other emergencies are in need of immediate aid.
(d) This provision is intended to cover not only all violent, predatory and harmful acts, but extends to the full range of prohibitions under penal statutes. It extends to conduct by persons not capable of incurring criminal liability.
Article 2
In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.
Commentary :
(a) The human rights in question are identified and protected by national and international law. Among the relevant international instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
(b) National commentaries to this provision should indicate regional or national provisions identifying and protecting these rights.
Article 3
Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
Commentary :
(a) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used.
(b) National law ordinarily restricts the use of force by law enforcement officials in accordance with a principle of proportionality. It is to be understood that such national principles of proportionality are to be respected in the interpretation of this provision. In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.
(c) The use of firearms is considered an extreme measure. Every effort should be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children. In general, firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. In every instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made promptly to the competent authorities.
Article 4
Matters of a confidential nature in the possession of law enforcement officials shall be kept confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice strictly require otherwise.
Commentary :
By the nature of their duties, law enforcement officials obtain information which may relate to private lives or be potentially harmful to the interests, and especially the reputation, of others. Great care should be exercised in safeguarding and using such information, which should be disclosed only in the performance of duty or to serve the needs of justice. Any disclosure of such information for other purposes is wholly improper.
Article 5
No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Commentary :
(a) This prohibition derives from the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly, according to which:
"[Such an act is] an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [and other international human rights instruments]."
(b) The Declaration defines torture as follows:
". . . torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners."
(c) The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" has not been defined by the General Assembly but should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental.
Article 6
Law enforcement officials shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required.
Commentary :
(a) "Medical attention", which refers to services rendered by any medical personnel, including certified medical practitioners and paramedics, shall be secured when needed or requested.
(b) While the medical personnel are likely to be attached to the law enforcement operation, law enforcement officials must take into account the judgement of such personnel when they recommend providing the person in custody with appropriate treatment through, or in consultation with, medical personnel from outside the law enforcement operation.
(c) It is understood that law enforcement officials shall also secure medical attention for victims of violations of law or of accidents occurring in the course of violations of law.
Article 7
Law enforcement officials shall not commit any act of corruption. They shall also rigorously oppose and combat all such acts.
Commentary :
(a) Any act of corruption, in the same way as any other abuse of authority, is incompatible with the profession of law enforcement officials. The law must be enforced fully with respect to any law enforcement official who commits an act of corruption, as Governments cannot expect to enforce the law among their citizens if they cannot, or will not, enforce the law against their own agents and within their agencies.
(b) While the definition of corruption must be subject to national law, it should be understood to encompass the commission or omission of an act in the performance of or in connection with one's duties, in response to gifts, promises or incentives demanded or accepted, or the wrongful receipt of these once the act has been committed or omitted.
(c) The expression "act of corruption" referred to above should be understood to encompass attempted corruption.
Article 8
Law enforcement officials shall respect the law and the present Code. They shall also, to the best of their capability, prevent and rigorously oppose any violations of them.
Law enforcement officials who have reason to believe that a violation of the present Code has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power.
Commentary :
(a) This Code shall be observed whenever it has been incorporated into national legislation or practice. If legislation or practice contains stricter provisions than those of the present Code, those stricter provisions shall be observed.
(b) The article seeks to preserve the balance between the need for internal discipline of the agency on which public safety is largely dependent, on the one hand, and the need for dealing with violations of basic human rights, on the other. Law enforcement officials shall report violations within the chain of command and take other lawful action outside the chain of command only when no other remedies are available or effective. It is understood that law enforcement officials shall not suffer administrative or other penalties because they have reported that a violation of this Code has occurred or is about to occur.
(c) The term "appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power" refers to any authority or organ existing under national law, whether internal to the law enforcement agency or independent thereof, with statutory, customary or other power to review grievances and complaints arising out of violations within the purview of this Code.
(d) In some countries, the mass media may be regarded as performing complaint review functions similar to those described in subparagraph (c) above. Law enforcement officials may, therefore, be justified if, as a last resort and in accordance with the laws and customs of their own countries and with the provisions of article 4 of the present Code, they bring violations to the attention of public opinion through the mass media.
(e) Law enforcement officials who comply with the provisions of this Code deserve the respect, the full support and the co-operation of the community and of the law enforcement agency in which they serve, as well as the law enforcement profession.



Canons of  Judicial Ethics :
http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2006/cje.pdf  ,
http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2007/mc_setalvad.3.11.2007.pdf 

Restatement of Values of Judicial Life

In India on 7th May 1997 a 16 point code of conduct, for ensuring proper conduct among members of the higher judiciary was adopted by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts with the Gujarat High Court as the sole dissenter, reportedly. The 16 point code which the Judges prefer to describe as “The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” is believed to have become effective since then. It was drafted by a Committee of five Judges, headed by Justice Dr.A.S.Anand, as he then was. The other members were Justice S.P.Barucha, Justice K.S.Paripoornan, Justice M.Srinivasan and Justice D.P.Mohapatra. The 16 point code[22] stipulates:

(1) Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen as done. The behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people’s faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. Accordingly, any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, weather in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of the perception has to be avoided.

(2) A Judge should not contest the election of any office of a Club, society or other association; further he shall not hold such elective office except in a society or association connected with the law.

(3) Close association with individual members of the Bar, particularly those who practice in the same court shall be eschewed.

(4) A Judge shall not permit any member of his immediate family to, such as spouse, son, or daughter, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law, or any other close relative, if as member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a case to be dealt with by him.

(5) No member of his family, who is a member of the Bar, shall be permitted to use the residence in which the judge actually resides or other facilities for professional work.

(6) A Judge should practise a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office.

(7) A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a member of his family, a close relation or a friend is concerned.

(8) A Judge shall not enter into a public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination.

(9) A Judge is expected to let his judgement speak for themselves. He shall not give interview to the media.

(10) A Judge shall not accept gifts or hospitality except from his family, close relations and friends.

(11) A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a company in which he holds shares is concerned unless he has disclosed his interest and no objection to his hearing and deciding the matter is raised.

(12) A Judge shall not speculate in shares, stocks or the like.

(13) A Judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person. (publication of a legal treaties or any activity in the mature of a hobby shall not be constructed as trade business).

(14) A Judge should not ask for accept contribute or otherwise actively associate himself with the raising of any fund for any purpose.

(15) A Judge should not seek any financial benefit in the form of a perquisite or privilege attached to his office unless it is clearly available. Any doubt in this behalf must be got resolved and clarified through the Chief Justice.

(16) Every Judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which the office is held.

These are only the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life” and are not meant to be exhaustive but illustrative of what is expected of a Judge.

Conclusion: 
Need of a new law suggested: The only remedy is to provide a legal conscience and for that there is necessity to enact a new law on the lines of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 under the purview of which the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall be brought, because neither the impeachment procedure of the Judges as provided in the Constitution nor the internal judicial machinery to prevent the corruption of Judges of the Higher Judiciary in India is workable.


Code of conduct for judges
By K. G. Kannabiran
Like the robe of the pastor, it is designed to transform the wearer in to the instrument of a higher power. The risk is that the judge will start thinking that he is the higher power. The likelihood increases when he proclaims from the bench to people who cannot differ with him and acquires a complacent confidence in his own view of things,
Judge Robert Satter.
It is recorded in the "Mirror of Justices" that King Alfred the Great, the Saxon King hanged forty four judges in one year foe reasons of violating the cod of conduct prescribed for the judges. One can be sure that the code prescribed him may not be any different from the code prescribed by the Chief Justices for themselves and their learned brothers and sister judges in the High Courts in the recently held conference of the Chief Justices. Long before the heard of constitutions, Alexis de Tocquoville, separation of powers and principles of natural justice, Alfred the Great laid down some rules of conduct for his judges. He had a right to, for he appointed them .. "if the judges acknowledged they had given a judgement because they new no better, he discreetly and moderately reproved their in experience and folly in terms such as these:
"I wonder truly at your insolence, but where as by God's favor and mine, you have occupied rank and office of the wise, you have neglected the studies and labors of the wise." He firmly told them "Either there fore give up the discharge of the temporal duties which you told, or endeavour more zealously to study the lessons of the wisdom." He was obviously aware that learning is not a prophylactic against corruption. So he commanded: Judge them very fairly. Do not judge one judgement for the rich and another for the poor; nor one for the one more dear and another for the one more hateful." One can safety presume that the 44 were intractable and there fore sent to the gibbet for violating these norms. The maladies which King Alfred found among his judges continued to plague societies down to the end of the present century.
People's struggles against slavery, arbitrariness in governance degenerating in to tyranny leading to revolts rebellions and revolutions yielded these institutions of governance and justice, as also the law and procedure which should regulate the working of these institutions. These found their definition in their present form during the period which struggled against and successfully defeated Stuart absolutism culminating the English Revolution. This marks the beginning of Role of Law. There has never been any visible severance with the past. It was by a patient theoretical re formulation and re definition during the course of long periods in history that the severance with the arbitrary past was effected. But long side with these developments absolutist trends against which people struggled, were dexterously woven in to jurisprudence and theories of law. The power of the King stood transferred to parliament and the courts. The privileges which parliament claimed against the King, were by, by an in comprehensible legerdemain, transformed in to privileges against the people who elected them. Similarly the courts were given independence against transference by the king and the executive mainly to protect the people and realm against arbitrariness. But very often they worked in tandem with the parliament and the executive in perpetuating and justifying arbitrary governance , whenever they felt that people are in a state with a insurrection against the institutions and the state. Ironically it was in the process of securing rights for the people and establishment of Rule and Law that parliament clamed contempt powers against citizens and the absolute powers of legislation. The limits of its legislative power are exposed by the example given. Theorists were of the view that parliamentary power is so absolute that it can legislatively order drowning of all blue eyed babies in river Tames - a power which no absolute monarch ever claimed… Theorists of parliamentary democracy defined thus the expansiveness of the power of parliament very proudly. As at present this adoration of absolute powers of the parliament is the view point which is questioned by those who have started a movement for the inclusion of the entrenched rights in the English Constitution Historically there was an appropriation of the power of the absolute monarch by the legislature and the courts. Where as there have been attempts in limiting the power of the legislature and the executive by popular pressure, periodic elections which act as a check on authoritarian trends and principally judicial review by Courts of executive actions and legislative measurers, no such systematic attempts has been made to contain the absolute powers of the courts without impairing the independence. Any attempt at reforming judiciary leads to paint these attempts as attempted erosions of judicial independence. Judicial independence is not a value in itself. It is expected so subserve the social values, which have been incorporated in to the constitution. Despite this assurance e of independence Courts have neither promoted democracy nor personnel liberty or social economic and political justice in the fifty year period of the constitution. This independence coupled with contempt power has made the institution absolutist and such an institution can never be the bulwark of democracy. A transgression of moral sanction come easily for absolute power.
The judiciary appropriated the contempt power the king had as an aspect of justice. It was an emanation of Royal authority and any contempt of court was really contempt of the Sovereign. If under the constitution the people are the sovereign no legitimate inference can be drawn that constitution delegated the court the sovereign power to punish the people or any one among them. Just as the Indian parliament inherited the privileges of the House of commons, The Indian Courts inherited the contempt power from the king of England. The Courts in India trace their genealogy of power to the Royal power of punishing people for contempt and its subsequent metamorphoses . This power was transformed in to a power which inheres in a court of record and the offence has become sui generis and transcends the limits of reasonable restraint judicially defined with impunity… The myth of original court of records in which the power of punishing for contempt inheres has become part of the occult jurisprudence which law abounds in. Such anachronisms and obscurantism coupled with irremovable tenure leads to misconduct among the judges. To the principle that untrammeled power whether de jure or de facto would encourage impunity the judiciary is no exception. These powers are absolute and one cannot even plead justification in public interest when accused of contempt. The elected representatives do not have such absolute powers.
An authoritative statement of the character and magnitude of contempt power would demonstrate why a code of conduct for any judges may not really be effective:"… It is an offence purely sui generis, and that its punishment involves in most cases an exceptional interference with liberty of the subject, and that, too, by a method or process which would in no other case be permissible, or even tolerated … The jurisdiction should be exercised in more carefully in view of the fact that the defendant is usually reduced, or pretends to be reduced, to such a state of humility, in fear of more severe consequences if he shows any recalcitrancy, that he is unable or unwilling to defend himself as he otherwise might have done"(Oswald "On Contempt of Court")
Having been fed on hope and illusions all of us applauded the Judges for prescribing for themselves a code containing principles, which are merely Polonius style pious homilies. These cannot be enforced and can be breached at will. The conduct the code addresses to are old habits and they hard die. The Chief Justice who is only first among equals he has no authority to command his colleges. to commence their sittings strictly according to the prescribed timings
In the life of a constitutional appointee the private and public divide or dichotomy does not exist One cannot be unjust unequal and arbitrary in personnel life and claim to adjudicate constitutional principles completely and fairly in courts. Talking about professional ethics. Durkheim raises issues, which appear to be quite relevant in today's context " A way of behaviour, no matter what it be, is set out on a steady course through habit and exercise. If we live a morally for a good part of the day, how can we keep the springs of the morality from going slack in us?. We are not naturally inclined to put ourselves out or use self restraint; if we are not encouraged at every step to exercise restraint upon which all morals depend, how should we get the habit of it? If we follow no rule except that of clear self interest, in occupations that take up nearly the whole of our time, how should we acquire a taste for any disinterestedness, or selflessness or sacrifice?" If they are merely moral precepts do the judges require a code of conduct like the clerical cadre? Does not the constitution imply a Code of Conduct? The objectives enumerated in the Preamble to the constitution, the fundamental rights, the fundamental obligations enumerated in part IV and the Constitutional oath prescribed for these appointees regulate their working in courts and the same values give rise to moral principles on a which to regulate ones conduct in life. A whole life time is spent in career seeking and career promotion and that has brought about a debasement of public morality. The colonial mind-set and the iniquitous feudal and caste practices, which every one of us has internalized, still is the predominant culture of these institutions. This is compounded by the adversarial system a legacy of laissez faire to the profession, has brought about a legal culture, which is unredeemingly competitive impervious to social mores and social purposes.
The pharisaical righteousness, the aggressive, authoritarian and pompous demeanor and other feudal habits, and the discourse in courts high light and inform any causal observer that this institution is arbitrary and no code of conduct can ever improve their performance unless we invoke against the members of the judiciary the same principles of deterrence which they so generously expound in criminal cases. The first step towards reforming the judiciary is to democratise the structure, the mode of discourse and dispense with the professional robes, a symbol of power. The simulated obsequiousness which one is a witness to in courts is quite disgusting and it goes with the colonial-feudal structure. The obsequious mode of address gets transformed into a title and we find a judge being addressed as "your Lordship" outside the court and in seminars or on any such occasion where a judge is participating or is merely present!
The expression "Justice" is similarly used to a judge who has demitted his office as if it is a title. Though we abolished titles the habit continues. The whole scene appears quite pompous The institution should be exposed to public criticism by confining contempt power a very narrow field of administration of justice and that will discipline the institution. Everything about the Court requires a radical transformation and the first step should be to discard the colonial and feudal vestiges which alone would give a democratic visage it so badly needs. Not the least is the liberation of a profession from self imposed servitude as a part of a lawyer's professional competence.



edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA     
  cell : 91 8970318202        
 home page:   
http://paper.li/f-1367938674      ,      
A   Member  of  Amnesty  International





posted by DALIT online @ 1:35 AM