Context: Recently, a Judge of the Allahabad High Court made controversial remarks within the Court precincts. This has raised concerns about the difficulties in holding judges of India's higher judiciary accountable for misconduct.

Judicial Accountability Mechanism

• The mechanism to hold judges accountable in India is complex and has several steps. The process to remove a judge involves an impeachment procedure, which is difficult to initiate and even harder to complete. Here’s how it works:

• Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, sets out the process for investigating judicial misconduct. If there is an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity by a judge, a three-member committee is formed to look into the matter. The committee consists of:

• A Supreme Court judge,

• A Chief Justice of a High Court, and

• An eminent jurist.

• This committee functions similarly to a trial court, investigating whether the judge's conduct warrants impeachment.

• Initiating the Impeachment: Before the committee can begin its investigation, the impeachment process must be initiated by either the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) or the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Parliament). This can be done if:

• A motion is brought in either House to impeach the judge.

• The motion must be supported by two-thirds of the members present in the House. This means that even if most members agree with the motion, it can fail if too many members abstain from voting.

• Role of Parliament: Once the committee investigates the charges, it submits its findings to Parliament. The impeachment process requires Parliament to vote on whether to remove the judge from office. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, Parliament votes to remove the judge.

• However, removal is not automatic, and if Parliament does not vote in favor (due to absences or political factors), the judge may not be removed.

• Historical Cases of Impeachment: There have been only two cases of successful impeachment proceedings, both involving serious misconduct: Justice V. Ramaswami (1990s) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)

Provisions for Judicial Accountability:

• Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 124(4) and 124(5): Allows impeachment of Supreme Court judges for proven misbehavior or incapacity.

• Article 217: Impeachment of High Court judges based on similar grounds.

• Article 235: Empowers High Courts to control and supervise subordinate courts.

• Restatement of Judicial Values (1997): Acts as a code of conduct for higher judiciary members.

Legal Provisions:

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Establishes a mechanism to investigate misconduct through a three-member panel.

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Ensures that judiciary functions independently without undue influence.

• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (pending): Aims to enhance transparency in judicial conduct and strengthen oversight mechanisms.

Need for Judicial Accountability:

• Ensuring Public Trust: Upholding the credibility of the judiciary and maintaining citizens’ confidence in the legal system.

• Preventing Misconduct: Ensures that judges adhere to ethical standards and constitutional principles.

• Enhancing Transparency: Judicial decisions should be open to scrutiny to promote fairness.

• Balancing Independence and Responsibility: Prevents misuse of judicial independence for personal or political interests.

• Promoting Rule of Law: Ensures decisions are unbiased, equitable, and in line with constitutional mandates.

Challenges to Judicial Accountability:

• Impeachment Complexity: The current impeachment process is cumbersome, requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

• Limited Oversight Mechanisms: Lack of robust external mechanisms to monitor judicial behaviour.

• Independence Concerns: Excessive accountability measures may threaten judicial independence.

• Resignations Before Proceedings: Judges resigning to avoid inquiries hinder the accountability process.

• Lack of Transparency: Closed-door deliberations reduce public trust in judicial proceedings.

Problems with the Current System

• The current judicial accountability system has several flaws:

• Political Interference: The impeachment process can be hindered by political factors, such as abstentions in Parliament.

• Resignation Loophole: Judges who face impeachment can resign, effectively avoiding accountability and preventing the investigation from continuing. This gives them immunity from punishment, unlike elected officials.

• Slow Process: The entire process is lengthy, and even if a judge is found guilty, they may continue to hold their position until the impeachment is passed, which requires significant political support.

Road Ahead

• Legislative Reforms: Expedite the passage of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill for structured oversight.

• Strengthening Internal Mechanisms: Develop independent judicial review bodies to monitor conduct.

• Codifying Ethical Guidelines: Expand and enforce the Restatement of Judicial Values.

• Public Scrutiny: Enhance transparency through regular publication of judgments and judicial activities.

• Training and Awareness: Conduct regular ethical training for judges to ensure adherence to constitutional principles.

Conclusion

• Judicial accountability is pivotal for preserving the judiciary’s independence and integrity. Transparent mechanisms and institutional reforms are vital to reinforce public trust and ensure that justice delivery aligns with democratic principles.