Refusing to subscribe to the generalised assertion that judiciary was corrupt, Chief Justice of India(CJI) R.C. Lahoti conceded that rampant corruption in scociety had not left the judiciary untouched.

While terming the Indian judiciary one of the best in the world, the new CJI said, "Despite the high morals and ethical standards expected of them, the fact is that judges are the products of this very society and the spread of any epidemic(corruption included) will not and cannot leave judges untouched."

Referring to the constitution, he said high courts had enough power, including the supervisory jurisdiction, over the subordinate courts to deal with any deviations or aberrations in individual cases. "Existing laws or rules, if found to be deficient in any manner, can always be supplemented and amended suitably", he added.

On the cash for warrants scam, in which an Ahmedabad court had issued warrants against the CJI and the President of India, Justice Lahoti said a cautious and vigilant high court led by an active chief justice could be a deterrant to such incidents. He said that stray incidents would not justify the general observation of corruption in high courts.

Realising the impossibility of impeaching a judge as it requires two third majority vote in Parliament, he said, "if the Parliament feels that by its past experience and the needs of the present that a better procedure can be devised, let there be a debate."

However, on a personal note, he said that he was not in favour of any procedure or mechanism which would deprive the judiciary and any of its constituents its independence. Favouring the current system of a judge being judged by his peers, he pointed out that it was a procedure followed in several countries.

Turning his attention to Gujarat riot cases, Justice Lahoti said the cases were extraordinary in nature and the Supreme Court had risen to the occasion in dealing with them in the discharge of its constitutional duties. "Gujarat was an extraordinary case which demanded extraordinary measures and the judiciary rose to the occasion", Justice Lahoti said.

Asked if the manner in which the apex court dealt with the cases could be termed as judicial activism, the CJI dismissed it saying, "The terminology judicial activism is a misnomer. The judiciary is supposed to be active under the constitution. The day it is not active, it ceases to be judiciary."