'The bill creates suspicion that the judiciary is seeking favours from the executive. This bill will make the judiciary subservient to the executive,' he contended.

Just before this, Natarajan stood up to say that since Clause 6 violated the Right to Information Act, it should be referred to a parliamentary standing committee.

House Deputy Chairman K. Rahman Khan too favoured this route, but Sitaram Yechury (Communist Party of India-Marxist) said: 'Sir, you know what happens of the recommendations of standing committees. They are not legally binding on the government.'

Moily, on his part, attempted to defend the bill, terming it the 'first step' of 'many things to come' but this cut no ice with the opposition MPs.

'Many say there is corruption in the judiciary and we need to deal with it. We can hardly do anything. Even the Judges Enquiry Act only lays down the procedure for impeachment. It doesn't deal with acts of omission and commission.

'This bill is the first step in that direction. There are many things to come, including a more comprehensive judges enquiry act,' Moily pointed out.

He also sought to make out a case for keeping the assets of judges under wraps as this information could be used to 'intimidate' judges and 'hold them to ransom'.

Yechury was quick to latch on to this, saying: 'Sir, the minister has made out a very good case for removing Clause 6. Let this clause be removed and let the bill be introduced. Let us put the issue to vote (on whether or not the bill should be introduced).'

At this, Moily said he was deferring the measure to build greater consensus.