Judicial accountability and judicial independence are two sides of the same coin. Discuss the constitutional provisions and existing mechanisms for judicial accountability in India and suggest ways to ensure they complement each other effectively.
Judicial accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law, protect democratic values, and maintain public confidence in the judiciary. While judicial independence is critical, accountability ensures that judges adhere to the principles of fairness, integrity, and impartiality.
Constitutional Provisions and Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability
Article 124(4) and (5) – Impeachment Process- Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can only be removed on grounds of “proved misbehavior or incapacity.” The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the process, including the formation of a three-member committee for inquiry. Justice V. Ramaswami’s impeachment failed in 1993 despite an adverse report, due to political abstentions.
Article 217 and 218– Govern the appointment and removal of High Court judges, ensuring a degree of accountability within the judiciary.
Three-Member Inquiry Committee– Includes a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist, to investigate allegations. Justice Soumitra Sen’s impeachment process saw the Rajya Sabha voting for his removal, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.
Resignation as a Loophole– Judges can avoid accountability by resigning before the conclusion of impeachment proceedings, as seen in the cases of Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice P.D. Dinakaran.
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997)– A non-binding code of conduct adopted by the Supreme Court to ensure ethical behavior among judges.
In-House Mechanism– Allows the judiciary to internally address allegations of misconduct. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s speech, raising questions about bias, may highlight the need for an effective internal review.
Judicial Immunity– Judges enjoy significant protections, including pensions and post-retirement benefits, even in cases of resignation after allegations.
Article 121 and 211 – Limited Discussions– Prevents Parliament and State Legislatures from discussing judicial conduct except during impeachment, preserving judicial independence.
Public Accountability Mechanisms– The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling brought the office of the Chief Justice under the RTI Act, promoting transparency.
Contemporary Challenges Highlighting Judicial Accountability
Justice V. Ramaswami Case– Found guilty of misconduct but continued in office due to a failed impeachment motion.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s Speech– Publicly criticized for communal bias, exposing gaps in the judiciary’s internal mechanisms.
Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice P.D. Dinakaran Resignations– Highlight the loophole of resignation before accountability, undermining the inquiry process.
RTI and Transparency– Despite the 2019 RTI ruling, opaque decision-making in appointments and misconduct cases persists.
Judicial Backlog and Public Confidence– With over 4.7 crore cases pending, inefficiency in the judiciary further strains public trust.
Suggestions to Enhance Accountability While Preserving Judicial Autonomy
Complete Proceedings Despite Resignations– Inquiry committees should complete their investigations regardless of a judge’s resignation to prevent misuse of this loophole. The Forum for Judicial Accountability argued for continuing investigations into Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s conduct.
Independent Oversight Body– A National Judicial Oversight Committee independent of the judiciary and executive can investigate allegations impartially.
Mandatory Public Disclosure of Assets– Judges should disclose their assets annually to ensure transparency and accountability.
Strengthening the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968– Amendments can include provisions to disqualify judges found guilty of misconduct from holding any future public office.
Performance Evaluation– Peer reviews and independent performance assessments could encourage accountability while maintaining independence.
Transparent Appointment Processes– Include public participation and detailed disclosures in the selection of judges to reduce nepotism and bias.
Expanding RTI Coverage– Judicial decisions and conduct inquiries should be more accessible under the RTI Act to foster public trust.
Ethical Training and Awareness– Regular workshops on judicial ethics and the constitutional role of judges can reinforce integrity.
Public Scrutiny Through Live Streaming– Live-streaming of court proceedings, as established in Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India (2018), ensures transparency and public scrutiny.
Conclusion
The judiciary’s independence must not shield it from accountability. Strengthening existing mechanisms, addressing loopholes, and introducing reforms can ensure that the judiciary remains a pillar of trust and justice in India. Balancing accountability with autonomy is critical to uphold the rule of law and public confidence in the judiciary.