Judicial Accountability in India
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Judiciary
Source: TH
Context: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar met key political leaders to discuss judicial accountability amid allegations of large-scale cash recovery from the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma, with the judiciary’s internal probe underway.
What is Judicial Accountability?
• Definition:
• Judicial accountability refers to holding judges answerable for their conduct and decisions within constitutional and legal frameworks.
• Features of Judicial Accountability:
• Ensures transparency and integrity in the judiciary.
• Balances independence with public responsibility.
• Includes adherence to ethical codes and judicial discipline.
• Allows inquiry mechanisms for misconduct.
• Prevents misuse of judicial power.
Need for Judicial Accountability in India:
• Public Trust:
• Accountability strengthens public faith in the justice delivery system.
Example: The Justice Nirmal Yadav case highlighted the damage to institutional credibility due to delayed action.
• Prevention of Corruption: Curb corruption and misuse of power in the higher judiciary.
• Checks on Unreviewable Power: As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer emphasized, unreviewable power requires more scrutiny.
• Enhancing Judicial Efficiency: Ensures judges uphold efficiency, ethics, and constitutional values.
• Institutional Integrity: Prevents misuse of constitutional safeguards to protect personal interests.
Laws and Constitutional Articles to Ensure Judicial Accountability:
• Articles 124(4) and 218: Provide for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Specifies procedures for investigation and impeachment of judges.
• Articles 227 and 235: Empower High Courts to supervise subordinate courts.
• In-house Procedure (1999): Established by the Supreme Court for internal inquiries against judges.
• RTI Act: Intended to promote transparency in judicial functioning, though implementation remains weak.
Challenges to Judicial Accountability:
• Lack of Transparency: Outcomes of in-house probes are often kept secret.
Example: Justice Soumitra Sen resigned before the impeachment motion could reach Lok Sabha.
• Contempt Powers: Fear of contempt discourages public discussion on judicial misconduct.
• Misuse of Constitutional Protection: Judges sometimes misuse independence clauses for personal shelter.
• Delays in Proceedings: Judicial misconduct cases drag on for years, reducing deterrence.
Example: The Justice Nirmal Yadav case has remained unresolved for over 14 years.
• No Dedicated Ombudsman: Absence of an independent judicial accountability authority.
Way Ahead:
• Establish Judicial Ombudsman: A dedicated body to independently investigate complaints against judges.
• Strengthen In-house Procedure: Ensure findings are made public to foster transparency.
• Revisit NJAC or Judicial Appointment Reforms: Balance independence with accountability through transparent judicial appointments.
• Use of Technology: Digital monitoring and tracking of case timelines for efficiency.
• Regular Ethics Training: Periodic orientation for judges on judicial ethics and public accountability.
Conclusion:
Judicial accountability is key to maintaining the judiciary’s integrity, independence, and public trust. Institutional safeguards must adapt to ensure accountability without compromising judicial freedom. Transparent procedures and strong oversight will strengthen democracy and public confidence in the judiciary.
• Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India (UPSC-2023)