Syllabus: GS2/Indian Polity; Judiciary
Context
- Holding judges accountable in India presents a unique set of challenges, rooted in the constitutional framework and the mechanisms in place for judicial oversight.
- The recent controversy surrounding Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has once again highlighted these difficulties.
Current Mechanism for Judicial Accountability
- The existing mechanism for judicial accountability in India is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It stipulates that a judge can only be removed for ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’ which must be determined by a three-member committee.
- The inquiry committee comprises a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist.
- This committee functions like a trial court but is only convened after a successful impeachment motion is initiated in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
- The motion must be approved by the presiding officer of the House— the Speaker in the case of the Lok Sabha, or the Vice-President/Chairman in the case of the Rajya Sabha.
| Mechanism for Removal of Judges – The Constitution of India provides for the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 124(4) and Article 217 respectively on grounds of ‘proved misbehavior or incapacity’. Process: – Initiation of Impeachment: A motion for removal must be introduced in either House of Parliament, supported by a special majority (⅓rd of the total membership and ⅓rd of members present and voting). – Presidential Approval: After the motion is passed, the President of India issues an order for the removal of the judge. – Parliament may regulate by law the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. Do You Know? – Only two judges have been found guilty of ‘misbehaviour’ by a committee set-up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 so far. – The first was retired Supreme Court Justice V. Ramaswami (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) who was found guilty of extravagant spending on his official residence. 1. Despite being found guilty of extravagant spending and misuse of office, the impeachment motion against him failed in Parliament. – The second was Justice Soumitra Sen, who was found guilty of misappropriating ₹33.23 lakh while serving as a court-appointed receiver. – It underscored the limitations of the existing system and led to the adoption of the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ by the Supreme Court in 1997, which serves as a Code of Conduct for Judges. |
Challenges in the Current System
- Complex Impeachment Process: A two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha or an absolute majority in the Rajya Sabha is required for removal from office.
- This makes it difficult to achieve consensus, especially in a politically charged environment.
- Immunity: Judges in India enjoy significant immunity and can escape accountability by resigning before formal proceedings.
- This immunity is greater than that afforded to elected officials, highlighting a gap in the system’s ability to hold judges to account for misconduct.
- Lack of Transparency: The judiciary operates with a high degree of opacity, particularly in the appointment and transfer of judges through the collegium system. It undermines public trust.
- Political Interference: There are instances where political pressures influence judicial decisions, compromising the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Proposed Reforms
- Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: The reintroduction and modification of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which lapsed in 2014, could provide a comprehensive framework for addressing judicial misconduct.
- It proposes mechanisms for the declaration of assets by judges and the establishment of a National Judicial Oversight Committee.
- Strengthening the Collegium System: Reforming the collegium system to include greater transparency and accountability in the appointment and transfer of judges is crucial.
- It could involve publicizing the criteria and reasons for judicial appointments and transfers.
- Independent Oversight Bodies: Establishing independent bodies to oversee judicial conduct and investigate complaints against judges can help mitigate biases and ensure impartiality.
- Enhanced Transparency: Implementing measures to increase transparency in judicial proceedings and decisions can restore public confidence.
- It includes making court proceedings and judgments more accessible to the public.
Way Forward
- Strengthening Internal Mechanisms: Establishing a more effective internal oversight body within the judiciary that can investigate and act on complaints against judges.
- Transparency in Appointments: Ensuring greater transparency in the appointment and transfer of judges through a more open and participatory process.
- Judicial accountability campaigns, such as the Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA), advocate for continued investigations into judicial misconduct, even after a judge’s resignation. These campaigns emphasize that impeachment is not just about removal but restoring the integrity of the judicial system.
- Public Disclosure: Mandating the disclosure of judges’ assets and liabilities to enhance transparency and public trust.
- Judicial Reforms: Implementing comprehensive judicial reforms that address delays in the justice delivery system and improve the overall efficiency of the judiciary.
Conclusion
- Fixing accountability in the Indian judiciary is essential for maintaining the integrity and trust of this vital institution. While existing mechanisms provide a foundation, significant reforms are necessary to address the challenges of transparency, political interference, and the cumbersome impeachment process.
- By adopting comprehensive reforms, India can ensure that its judiciary remains independent, impartial, and accountable to the people it serves.
Previous article
Sea Level Rise