Source: The challenge of holding judges accountable, The Hundu, December 30, 2024
This article highlights the challenges in holding higher judiciary judges accountable in India, focusing on the complex impeachment process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
It examines past cases of judicial misconduct, demonstrating how resignations have often obstructed the accountability process, allowing judges to evade complete investigations and repercussions.
Recent Controversy: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court delivered a speech on December 8, expressing apparent biases against a particular minority community. This incident highlights the limitations in India’s mechanisms for holding higher judiciary judges accountable for their conduct.
Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework
Relevant Articles:
- Article 124(4): Establishes the process for removal of Supreme Court judges based on “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”
- Article 124(5): Allows for the creation of laws, such as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to regulate judicial accountability.
- Articles 217 and 218: Extend provisions to High Court judges.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs the impeachment process, which involves a three-member committee comprising: A Supreme Court judge; A Chief Justice of a High Court; An eminent jurist.
Initiation Process:
- Impeachment motions must first be introduced in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
- Approval by the presiding officer (Speaker or Vice-President/Chairman) is required for the process to advance.
- The three-member committee functions like a trial court to assess evidence of misconduct.
Voting Requirements for Removal
- Parliamentary Approval: Article 124(4) stipulates that the impeachment motion must be approved by:
- A two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
- An absolute majority of the total membership in both Houses.
Challenges in the Current Framework
- Judicial Immunity: Judges often resign before proceedings conclude, retaining retirement perks and avoiding further investigation.
- Public Trust Issues: Critics argue that resignations undermine accountability and fail to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Strengthening Judicial Accountability
- Investigations post-resignation: Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) advocated for continuing investigations post-resignation to reinforce judicial accountability. It asserted that impeachment serves not only to remove judges but also to maintain public trust in the judiciary. It suggested distinguishing between the investigation phase under Article 124(5) and the impeachment process under Article 124(4).
- Systemic Reform Needed: The current system, with its procedural hurdles and loopholes, enables judges to evade scrutiny, undermining justice.
- Ensuring Integrity: Enhancing mechanisms for judicial accountability is crucial to upholding democratic values. Completing investigations even after resignations is essential to restore public trust and ensure fair justice.
Also Read: Removing Judges Under The Indian Constitution
Proposed Reforms for Strengthening Judicial Accountability
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill
- Reintroduction and Modification: Reviving and modifying the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which lapsed in 2014, could establish a structured framework for addressing judicial misconduct.
- Key Provisions: Mandating judges to declare their assets and liabilities; Creating a National Judicial Oversight Committee to investigate complaints and oversee judicial conduct.
Reforming the Collegium System
- Transparency in Appointments: Reforming the collegium system to introduce clearer criteria for judicial appointments and transfers.
- Public Disclosure: Publishing the reasons and criteria for judicial appointments to enhance transparency and public trust.
Independent Oversight Bodies
- Establishment: Creating independent bodies dedicated to monitoring judicial conduct and handling complaints against judges.
- Impartial Investigations: Ensuring these bodies are free from external influence to mitigate biases and maintain impartiality.
Enhanced Transparency in Judicial Proceedings
- Accessible Judgments: Making court proceedings and judgments more accessible to the public through digital platforms and simplified legal language.
- Public Confidence: Promoting openness in judicial decisions to strengthen public trust in the judiciary.
UPSC Essentials 2025: Contemporary Issues, Volume 1
The book presents important issues covered in The Indian Express and The Hindu during November 2024, carefully selected to eliminate unnecessary facts and prioritize conceptual understanding. Click to buy now.