Judicial Accountability and Independence: Lokpal vs Supreme Court
The recent developments involving the Lokpal's ruling and the Supreme Court's response bring to the forefront significant issues regarding the independence and accountability of the judiciary in India.
Key Highlights
- Lokpal's Ruling: The Lokpal ruled that High Court judges fall under its jurisdiction, citing the Prevention of Corruption Act's definition of 'public servant'.
- Supreme Court's Stay: The Supreme Court stayed the Lokpal's decision, highlighting the potential threat to judicial independence if judges of constitutional courts were accountable to the Lokpal.
Background and Legal Context
- The Lokpal Act of 2013 was cited, stating that it does not cover Supreme Court judges, as the Supreme Court is a constitutional institution, not a statutory body.
- However, the Lokpal argued High Court judges fall under its purview as High Courts are statutory bodies.
Precedent and Concerns
- The case of K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) highlighted the need for consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) before registering a case against judges, ensuring a balance between accountability and independence.
- The Lokpal ruling is now under review, emphasizing the need to address accountability for judges when credible corruption charges arise.
Current Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability
- The Court has an in-house procedure for dealing with complaints against judges.
- If charges are credible, actions such as asking judges to resign, denying them judicial work, or recommending removal through Parliament are considered.
- Transfers between High Courts occur, but reasons, such as corruption charges, are not publicly disclosed.
Conclusion and Considerations
The judiciary must balance accountability and independence. The current situation suggests a need for reviewing existing mechanisms to ensure they are robust enough, potentially involving independent prosecution supervised by the judiciary itself.
