Two former senior judges said today the allegation made by a Court of Appeal judge yesterday is serious enough to warrant the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry or tribunal.

Yesterday, Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer revealed he had been reprimanded by a top judge for his dissenting judgment in the unilateral conversion case of M Indira Gandhi’s children.

Former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram said it was improper for a top judge, be it a Chief Justice, or Federal Court judge, to act that way.

"A superior judge has no right to reprimand a judge, similarly a Chief Justice or Federal Court judge calling out a judge, as it could amount to interference in a function of a judge.

"Every judge is a lion or lioness in his o her den (court). A superior court judge could only correct the judgment if there is an appeal. However, in this case, the response by the Federal Court in the Indira Gandhi case is a slap on the top judge itself as the dissenting judgment was unanimously approved by the Federal Court," Sri Ram said.

He also felt the top judge should be named and shamed.

"The complaint (in this issue) can be made before a tribunal as disagreeing with the minority judgment is serious misconduct by the senior judge," the former Federal Court judge said.

Former Court of Appeal judge Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus (photo) said the allegation made is serious, as it amounts to judicial interference by a top judge, who in the first place, is entrusted to protect the independence of the judiciary and judges.

"My view is that there is merit for this serious allegation to be inquired into by a Royal Commission of Inquiry," he said.

"Just like what happened in the video-clip scandal case where there was an allegation of an inappropriate conversation between a top judge and a lawyer. In this case, the government formed an RCI," Mohd Hishamudin said, referring to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the VK Lingam video clip in 2007.

Sri Ram further added that when a judge acts judiciously, having to deal with a case or judgment, he is not answerable to anyone unless he attacked an innocent third party without giving that person an opportunity to be heard.

At the International law conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, claimed that two years ago, as soon the Indira Gandhi judgment was released, a top judge called up the entire coram and severely reprimanded him, accusing him of judicial activism.

"Not only that but he started throwing tantrums (directed) at me in an uncivilised manner.

"I stood my ground. My response to that top judge was that I do not have to defend my judgment and I will not be cowed to act against my oath of office.

"This incident created a long-term, strained relationship with that judge," Justice Hamid Sultan said, without revealing who the top judge was.

As a result of the judgment, Justice Hamid Sultan added, he was not assigned to hear cases involving public interests or those related to the Federal Constitution.