Session 11: Judiciary

There are some problems with the system that cannot be curbed, at least not completely. These are innate and curbing these will require us to take the human element out of the system, which is impossible because the system is man-made, catering to humans. An example of such a problem is corruption, which I believe cannot be eradicated from the system. A better approach to dealing with corruption is to accept it as part of system thereby including it in the system and regulating it. As we see by example of China, corruption does not put impediments to growth (initially), and in places can even cause speedy processing in a bureaucratic quagmire. Expecting the judges to be impartial is a similar issue. Judges are people and so will have some opinions, likes and dislikes, even if they are innocent. And these will affect their decisions. It is important to create an environment where judges can speak freely of their opinions so that the public is aware of them, so that these opinions will not factor into their decisions. If their opinions are open knowledge, the judges will strive to make impartial decisions to protect the sanctity of their own position. For example, if a judge is known to be close to corporation through friends or family or otherwise, a decision in favor of this corporation will lead to public scrutiny of the ruling. And if the ruling is found to be biased the judge will face the consequences, in terms of disciplinary action or infamy. Another important thing to note is that where a judge cannot be expected to be impartial, the judiciary is. The Judiciary’s opinion should be formed by averaging of individual opinions of judges so that the Judiciary on the whole is not partial to anybody. Since the executive cannot be expected to select an impartial judiciary, there should be a body that ensures the judiciary’s impartiality by selecting judges with varied opinions.