Syllabus
GS Paper 2 – Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context
There are ambiguities in the Captive Elephant (Transfer or Transport) Rules that may facilitate illegal trade in elephants.
Source
The Hindu| Editorial dated 30th December 2024
The challenge of holding judges accountable
Judicial accountability is pivotal for upholding the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The recent controversies surrounding Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court and historical cases like Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice P.D. Dinakaran bring to light the challenges in ensuring accountability for judges of the higher judiciary. While mechanisms such as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, exist, procedural and institutional gaps persist, undermining public trust in judicial processes.
Provisions for Judicial Accountability in India
- Framework Under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution
- Article 124 (4) and (5): Provide the basis for impeachment of Supreme Court and High Court judges for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Establishes a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist to investigate charges.
- Requires a motion to be passed by two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, ensuring checks and balances.
- Historical Precedents of Judicial Impeachment
- Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Found guilty of financial misconduct, yet impeachment failed due to abstentions by the ruling party.
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Accused of misappropriating funds but resigned before the Lok Sabha motion.
- These cases highlight systemic loopholes, such as political interference and the judge’s ability to resign to avoid accountability.
- Challenges in the Current Framework
- The high threshold of parliamentary majority required for impeachment makes removal rare.
- Judges accused of misconduct often continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits, diminishing the deterrence effect.
- Lack of provision to disqualify judges from holding future public offices after proven misbehaviour.
Instances of Misconduct and Their Implications
- Justice V. Ramaswami Case
- Found guilty of extravagant expenditures, such as purchasing 7 maces without due process.
- Motion for removal defeated due to 205 abstentions in Lok Sabha, despite public outrage.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran Case
- Accused of appropriating over 300 acres of land and other charges of corruption.
- Resigned on the day the investigation panel convened, highlighting the ease with which judges can avoid scrutiny.
- Justice Soumitra Sen Case
- Misappropriated ₹33.23 lakh as a court-appointed receiver.
- His resignation before the Lok Sabha motion demonstrates how judges can evade accountability while retaining privileges.
Gaps in the Mechanism
- Resignation as an Escape Route
- Judges can resign before the conclusion of impeachment, halting the inquiry process.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act lacks provisions to continue investigations post-resignation, undermining judicial accountability.
- High Threshold for Impeachment
- Two-thirds majority in both Houses is difficult to achieve, often leading to political stalemates.
- Political abstentions, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermine the process.
- Public Trust and Transparency
- Absence of transparency in proceedings diminishes public confidence in judicial integrity.
- Lack of clear guidelines on post-retirement benefits for judges found guilty.
Recommendations for Strengthening Judicial Accountability
- Amendments to Judges (Inquiry) Act
- Enable continuation of investigations post-resignation to ensure accountability.
- Introduce provisions to disqualify judges from holding future public offices after proven misbehaviour.
- Enhancing Transparency
- Make proceedings of impeachment panels public, ensuring greater scrutiny.
- Publish findings of the three-member committee, irrespective of impeachment outcomes.
- Independent Oversight Mechanism
- Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Authority to review complaints against judges.
- Empower this authority to recommend penalties, including disqualification and forfeiture of benefits.
Conclusion
Judicial accountability is integral to upholding the sanctity of the judiciary. However, the current mechanisms often fail to deliver effective outcomes due to procedural loopholes and political interference. By amending existing laws and introducing independent oversight, India can strike a balance between judicial independence and accountability, thereby reinforcing public trust in the judicial system. Addressing these challenges will ensure that the judiciary remains a beacon of integrity and fairness in India’s democracy.
Related PYQ
Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. [ UPSC Civil Services Exam – Mains 2021]
Practice Question
Discuss the challenges and gaps in the current judicial accountability mechanism in India. [250 words]
Guidelines for Answering the Question
- Introduction:
- Begin by explaining the importance of judicial accountability in maintaining the integrity and trust of the judiciary.
- Mention the constitutional provisions and mechanisms like the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, aimed at ensuring judicial accountability.
- Body:
- Explain the procedural complexities, such as initiating impeachment motions and the role of Parliament in removing judges.
- Examine how the existing system impacts public confidence in the judiciary.
- Advocate for the creation of an independent judicial accountability commission for overseeing misconduct allegations.
- Suggest procedural reforms to ensure continuity of inquiry even after a judge resigns.
- Conclusion:
- Conclude by emphasizing the need for balancing judicial accountability with the independence of the judiciary.