The proposition asserts that India's judiciary must mandatorily publish disciplinary records of judges under RTI, rejecting the claim that judicial independence shields such records from public scrutiny.
Aaj ki is important debate ka motion yeh hai: 'Judicial Misconduct Records Must Be Publicly Disclosed Under Right To Information' — yani kya nyayapalika ke andar hone wale aacharan-sambandhit records ko RTI ke zariye aam nagrik tak pahunchaya jaana chahiye. Yeh ek deeply constitutional sawaal hai jo judicial independence aur public accountability ke beech ke nazuk balance ko challenge karta hai. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh establish karna chahta hoon ki judicial misconduct ke records ka public disclosure RTI ke antargat ek constitutional zaroorat hai — kyunki IPC Section 219 khud yeh maanta hai ki ek public servant jo judicial proceeding mein corruptly aur contrary to law kaam karta hai, woh ek cognizable misconduct karta hai. Agar kanoon khud is misconduct ko define karta hai, toh uske records ko opacity ki chaadar mein chhupana Rule of Law ka seedha ullanghan hai. Transparency tabhi meaningful hoti hai jab public ko yeh jaanne ka adhikar ho ki unke nyaya-tantra ke andar kya ho raha hai.
Ref: INDIAN-PENAL-CODE-1860 · Section 219
My lord, main Bina, vipaksh ki taraf se samajhti hoon ki paksh ne RTI ke naam par ek bahut bada daawa kiya hai — lekin is motion ka sabse bada nuksaan yeh hai ki yeh judicial independence aur accountability ke beech ka nazuk santulan tod deti hai. IPC Section 219 — jo judicial proceedings mein corrupt conduct ko define karti hai — woh pehle se ek structured mechanism deta hai jahan judicial misconduct ka record ek defined legal process ke bheetar rahe, khule mein nahi; kyunki indiscriminate public disclosure sub-judice matters ko prejudice kar sakti hai aur nyay-pranali ki neenv ko khokha kar sakti hai. Isliye main yeh maanti hoon ki yeh motion jaise bhi frame ki gayi ho, is roop mein implement nahi honi chahiye.
Ref: INDIAN PENAL CODE · Section 219
My lord, vipaksh ne transparency ka virodh kiya, lekin woh bhool rahe hain ki IPC Section 219 — jo ki mein clearly verified hai — yeh khud manta hai ki ek public servant jo judicial proceeding mein corruptly kuch kare, woh ek cognizable misconduct hai. Agar yeh misconduct statute mein acknowledged hai, to uske records ko RTI se bahar rakhna kaise justified hoga? Judicial accountability aur judicial independence ek doosre ke dushman nahi hain — disclosure ka matlab independence ka khatma nahi, balki public trust ki neev hai. Main maanta hoon ki jo system apne misconduct records chhupaata hai, woh transparency nahi, blindfold maangta hai.
Ref: INDIAN-PENAL-CODE-1860 · Section 219
My lord, paksh ne jo bhi RTI ki baat ki, woh suni — lekin is motion ka core issue yeh hai ki judicial misconduct records ki public disclosure se judicial independence ko seedha khatra hai, aur is disclosure ke liye koi verified statutory framework in authorities mein maujood nahi hai jo is specific remedy ko support kare. IPC Section 219 — jo / mein hai — yeh sirf yeh batata hai ki ek public servant judicial proceeding mein corruptly kya karta hai, yeh RTI ke zariye public disclosure ka mandate nahi deta; iska scope bilkul alag hai. Isliye main kehna chahti hoon ki paksh ne jo bhi authorities cite ki, unme se koi bhi judicial misconduct records ki mandatory public disclosure ko justify nahi karti — aur bina is statutory backing ke, yeh motion apne aap mein khaali hai.
Ref: INDIAN-PENAL-CODE-1860 · Section 219
Petitioner ki taraf ne kaha ki judicial misconduct records RTI ke antargat publicly disclose hone chahiye — transparency aur accountability ke liye yeh naagrik ka adhikar hai; jabki respondent ki taraf ne kaha ki judicial independence aur court of record ki constitutional stature — jaise Article 215 ke under High Court ki powers — ek blanket disclosure se undermine hogi. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki ek independent, statutory oversight mechanism banana chahiye jisme verified misconduct records — personally identifiable judicial deliberations ko chhod kar — public domain mein aaye, lekin in-camera proceedings ki sanctity aur contempt powers ki rakhwali bhi ho. Ab main citizens se anurodh karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karein aur apna vichar share karein — kyunki yeh sawaal sirf courtrooms ka nahi, poore samaj ka hai.