This refers to the on-going debate on 'conflict-of-interest' in the Indian judiciary, especially on point-number 11 'A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in which a company in which he holds shares is concerned
THIS REFERS to the on-going debate on ‘conflict-of-interest’ in the Indian judiciary especially on point-number 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,” of 16-point unanimous resolution ‘Restatement of values of judicial life’ (popularly known as conduct-code for judges) passed by all the Supreme Court judges on 07.05.1997.
There have been instances when some Supreme Court judges continued hearing of such cases after disclosing having shares in the companies under litigation. But cases also exist like the one where Justice MH Kania in the Supreme Court rescued himself from the infamous ‘Bhopal-Gas-Leak’ case because the judge had shares in Union Carbide Limited, without consulting lawyers.
It will be more appropriate if our judicial system complies with internationally accepted standards for managing conflict-of-interest like the one passed at the 2002-convention in UN-sponsored ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’ by judges from across the world with India as host-country wherein clause 2.5 states “A judge shall disqualify himself from participating in any proceedings in which a judge or a member of the judge’s family has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy.” Our judges including the Chief Justice attend such international conferences, and as such principles adopted at such conferences should be brought into practice in India as well.