JUDGMENT :

Kurian Joseph, J.

Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is moral uprightness; honesty. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. 'Judiciary is an integrity institution'. Therefore, Judicial Officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline apart from others as reminded by the Apex Court in Tarak Singh and Another Vs. Jyoti Basu and Others, AIR 2005 SC 338 To quote:

Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others. It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the judicial-delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.

Under The Bar Council of India Rules, An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and a moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate.

These attributes apply with equal force, nay, with stronger vigor to Judicial Officers. In High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Anr. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 72, Judges have been described as 'hermits', further reminding that, "they have to live and behave like hermits, who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat". In Tarak Singh's case (supra), having regard to the plain truth that the judiciary is also manned by human beings and yet in view of their privileged position, it was cautioned as follows:

There is nothing wrong in a Judge having an ambition to achieve something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to cause a compromise with his divine judicial duty, better not to pursue it. Because, if a Judge is too ambitious to achieve something materially, he becomes timid. When he becomes timid there will be a tendency to make a compromise between his divine duty and his personal interest. There will be a conflict between interest and duty.

In High Court of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through ite Registrar Vs. Udaysingh Nimbalkar and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2286, in the matter of maintenance of discipline, the Apex Court stated as follows:

...Maintenance of discipline in the judicial service is a paramount matter. Acceptability of the judgment depends upon the credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the officer. The confidence of the litigating public gets affected or shaken by lack of integrity and character of Judicial Officer....

In Daya Shankar Vs. High Court of Allahabad and Others through Registrar and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1469 the Supreme Court set the following standard:

Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.

In High Court of The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Through Its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S.Patil and Another, AIR 2000 SC 22 in more emphatic words, it was stated that dishonesty is the stark antithesis of judicial probity, and

...A dishonest judicial personage is an oxymoron....

Having regard to certain sporadic instances of lack of probity and integrity among some of the personnel who man this high office, it is high time that specific standards are set with regard