Judicial Accountability

Posted 16 Apr 2025

Updated 24 Apr 2025

4 min read

Why in the News?

The discovery of wads of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge has raised concerns regarding accountability in India's higher judiciary.

Existing Key Mechanism for Ensuring accountability

Impeachment: Governed by Articles 124, 217, 218 of the constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
In-House Mechanism of 1999: Based on two important charters governing judicial ethics— the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life 1997 and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002.
- The CJI can receive complaints against the conduct of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High Courts. High Court Chief Justices can handle complaints within their courts.
- A three-member committee examines the complaint and may recommend removal or criminal action. For instance, Justice Soumitra Sen and Nirmal Yadav were found guilty through such committees.
  - In case of complaint against a HC judge, committee consists of two Chief Justices of HCs other than the HC to which judge belongs and one HC judge.
  - In case of complaint against a HC Chief Justice, committee consists of a SC judge and two Chief Justices of other HCs.
  - In case of complaint against a SC judge, committee consists of three SC judges.

An image showing details of Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

Concerns Surrounding Judicial Accountability in India

Conflict with Judicial Independence	Any effort at ensuring judicial accountability is often seen as interfering with judicial independence. The 1993 Collegium System is criticized for opaque appointment and National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed to overcome its shortcomings. However, NJAC was struck down by the Supreme Court in a 4:1 verdict in the 2015 Advocates-on-Record case. NJAC was to consist of six members: the CJI, the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons
Complex Impeachment Process	Constitutional mechanism of impeachment is too complex to implement and fails to hold judges accountable, thus, no judge has ever been removed through impeachment. For instance, Justice Ramaswamy, found guilty of misusing court's fund, yet escaped impeachment due to lack of votes in Parliament.
No Mandatory Asset Disclosure Norm	In 1997, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution the 'judges should declare all assets including those of spouses and dependents to the CJI'. In 2009, the Supreme Court resolved to declare the assets of judges on the court's website on a voluntary basis. Recently, All the sitting judges of the Supreme Court have unanimously agreed to disclose their assets publicly by publishing the details on the apex court's official website, marking a significant move towards greater transparency.
Limited checks and balances	Judiciary self-governs most of its aspects like appointment of judges, procedures governing behaviour of judges, inquiry mechanisms etc.
Other Provisions Hindering Accountability	Immunity from Criminal Action: As per the K. Veeraswami judgment (1991) of the Supreme Court, prior permission from the CJI is mandatory for registration of criminal cases against High Court or Supreme Court judges. Restriction on RTI: Supreme Court and High Courts have rejected Right to Information (RTI) related to key aspects like collegium decisions and disclosure of personal assets of judges.

Way Forward to Ensure Judicial Accountability

Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: It was introduced in 15^th Lok Sabha but lapsed due to dissolution of Lok Sabha.
- Parliament may introduce a new bill for setting judicial standards and establishing a proper mechanism for inquiries into judicial misconduct without giving excessive control to the legislature or the executive.
National Judicial Commission (NJC): Proposed by Law Commission of India reports (80th & 121st) to handle appointments and misconduct investigations.
- In addition to judicial member NJC is advised to keep non-Judicial member.
Permanent Disciplinary Committee: A committee with members from judiciary should be set up at the central level to deal with complaints against judges.
- The committee can give a warning, reprimand or advisory in case of minor instance of misbehaviour while request setting up judicial inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act in case of major misconduct.
Judicial Oversight: A continuous performance evaluation mechanism may be devised for judges where lapses in standards, or questionable conduct by individual judges immediately come to light.