Law and You > Constitutional Law > Judicial Accountability

Judicial accountability refers to the idea that judges are accountable for the judgements they render. It also entails that judges must answer for their behaviour. The judicial branch of the government is not held to the same standards of accountability as the executive or legislative branches. Judicial accountability refers to the principle that judges, as holders of public office and wielders of significant power, are subject to scrutiny, oversight, and accountability for their actions and decisions.

In S.P. Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 149  case P.N. Bhagwati, J. observed that “ it is indeed important to have judges who are prepared to fashion new tools, methods strategies and are ready to evolve a new jurisprudence, who are judicial statesmen with a social vision and creative faculty and who have, above all, a deep sense of commitment to the Constitution with an activist approach and obligation for accountability— not to any political party in power nor to the classes which are vociferous but to the half hungry millions of India who are continually denied their human rights.”

To Whom the Judiciary is Expected to be Accountable?

The meaning of accountability, literally and in general sense, is the sense of being answerable to someone. Accountability is sine qua non of democracy. Accountability is aided by transparency. No public institution or public functionary is immune from responsibility, albeit how accountability is enforced varies depending on the nature of the office and the functions carried out by the office holder. Judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy in India. The accountability of judiciary is however is not the same as of accountability of the legislature or the executive. Broadly speaking, the judiciary must be accountable to the law, in the sense that the decisions made are in accordance with the law and are not arbitrary. Like any other branches of government, it must also be accountable to the general public it serves.

Need of Judicial Accountability:

Judicial accountability is essential for several reasons, each contributing to the proper functioning and legitimacy of the judicial system:

• Preservation of Democracy: In democratic societies, the judiciary serves as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. Judicial accountability ensures that judges exercise their authority responsibly, without overstepping their bounds or infringing upon the rights of citizens.
• Protection of Rights and Liberties: Judges have significant power to interpret laws, adjudicate disputes, and protect individual rights and liberties. Judicial accountability helps ensure that judges uphold constitutional principles, apply the law fairly, and safeguard the rights of all individuals, including minorities and vulnerable populations.
• Promotion of Fairness and Impartiality: Judicial accountability contributes to maintaining the impartiality and fairness of the judiciary. By holding judges accountable for their decisions and conduct, the judicial system can guard against bias, favoritism, and corruption, thereby promoting confidence in the administration of justice.
• Enhancement of Public Trust: Judicial accountability is essential for maintaining public trust and confidence in the judiciary. When judges are held accountable for their actions and decisions, it helps to reinforce the credibility and integrity of the judicial system, encouraging public respect for the rule of law and the authority of the courts.
• Prevention of Judicial Misconduct: Accountability mechanisms serve as deterrents against judicial misconduct, including unethical behaviour, abuse of power, and breaches of judicial ethics. By imposing consequences for misconduct, accountability measures help maintain the integrity and professionalism of the judiciary.
• Improvement of Judicial Performance: Accountability fosters a culture of continuous improvement within the judiciary. Judges are encouraged to enhance their skills, knowledge, and ethical standards through ongoing training, evaluation, and feedback, ultimately leading to better performance and decision-making.
• Adaptation to Changing Needs: Judicial accountability allows the judiciary to adapt to evolving societal needs and expectations. By monitoring judicial performance and responsiveness, accountability mechanisms can identify areas for improvement and facilitate reforms to enhance access to justice, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Thus, judicial accountability is indispensable for upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, maintaining public trust, and ensuring the proper functioning of the judicial system in a democratic society.

Elements of Judicial Accountability:

Transparency:

Transparency is a fundamental component of judicial accountability, as it ensures openness, accessibility, and public scrutiny of the judicial system. Transparency in the judiciary entails providing the public with access to information about court proceedings, judicial decisions, and administrative actions. This includes making court records, judgments, and opinions available to the public, either online or through public repositories, to promote openness and accountability. When judicial decisions and actions are made transparent, it becomes easier to hold judges accountable for any misconduct, bias, or breaches of ethical standards. This can include investigations, disciplinary proceedings, or other accountability measures. When court proceedings are open to public observation, it promotes confidence in the integrity of the judicial process and guards against bias or favoritism.

By allowing the public, legal professionals, and other stakeholders to monitor judicial proceedings and decisions, transparency helps prevent abuses of power, ensure adherence to legal standards, and maintain the separation of powers among branches of government. Transparent judicial proceedings and decision-making contribute to building public trust and confidence in the judiciary. When the public has access to information about how courts operate and how judges reach their decisions, it fosters accountability, legitimacy, and respect for the rule of law. Transparency facilitates the functioning of accountability mechanisms within the judiciary. It enables the identification of areas for improvement, evaluation of judicial performance, and implementation of reforms to enhance accountability, professionalism, and efficiency within the judicial system.

Transparency in the judiciary upholds democratic values such as accountability, participation, and the rule of law. It promotes public engagement with the legal system, encourages civic education and awareness, and reinforces the principle that justice should be administered in an open and transparent manner.

Ethical Conduct:

Ethical conduct is a cornerstone of judicial accountability, as it ensures that judges uphold principles of integrity, fairness, and impartiality in their roles as dispensers of justice. Ethical conduct ensures that judges act with integrity and honesty in carrying out their judicial duties. Judges are expected to adhere to high ethical standards, maintain impartiality, and avoid conflicts of interest, thereby fostering public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Ethical conduct requires judges to adjudicate cases based on the merits of the law and evidence, without bias, prejudice, or favouritism. Judges must treat all parties before the court with dignity, respect, and fairness, regardless of their status, background, or identity. Ethical conduct obligates judges to comply with legal standards, including statutory laws, constitutional provisions, and ethical codes of conduct. Judges must apply the law faithfully and impartially, respecting the rights and liberties of individuals and upholding the rule of law.

Ethical conduct prohibits judges from engaging in activities or relationships that may create conflicts of interest or compromise their impartiality. Judges must refrain from participating in cases where they have a personal or financial interest, ensuring the integrity and independence of the judicial process. Ethical conduct holds judges accountable for any misconduct, impropriety, or breaches of judicial ethics. Accountability mechanisms, such as judicial review, disciplinary proceedings, or oversight by judicial councils, ensure that judges are subject to consequences for unethical behaviour, thereby maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of the judiciary. Ethical conduct reinforces the principle of judicial independence, which is essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of individuals. Judges must be free from external influence or pressure, allowing them to adjudicate cases impartially and without fear of reprisal.

Ethical conduct contributes to building public confidence in the judiciary. When judges demonstrate ethical behaviour and adherence to ethical standards, it enhances the reputation, legitimacy, and authority of the judicial system, fostering public trust and respect for the administration of justice.

Impartiality and Independence:

Impartiality and independence are critical aspects of judicial accountability, as they ensure that judges can make decisions free from bias, influence, or interference. Impartiality is the cornerstone of judicial accountability, ensuring that judges adjudicate cases objectively and without prejudice. Impartial judges consider the facts and evidence presented before them, apply the law fairly and consistently, and render decisions based solely on legal merits, irrespective of personal biases or external pressures. Judicial independence is essential for holding judges accountable for their decisions and actions. Independent judges are free from undue influence or interference from external sources, such as political authorities, special interests, or public opinion. This independence allows judges to uphold the rule of law and administer justice without fear of reprisal or favouritism.

Judicial independence operates within the framework of checks and balances among branches of government. While judges are expected to exercise independence in their decision-making, accountability mechanisms ensure that their actions are subject to appropriate oversight and scrutiny. This balance helps prevent abuses of power, maintain the separation of powers, and uphold democratic principles.

Impartiality and independence do not absolve judges from accountability for their decisions and conduct. Judicial accountability mechanisms, such as judicial review, disciplinary proceedings, or oversight by judicial councils, ensure that judges are held accountable for any misconduct, breaches of ethics, or violations of legal standards. These mechanisms help maintain the credibility, integrity, and legitimacy of the judiciary.

Impartiality, independence, and accountability collectively contribute to building public confidence in the judiciary. When judges demonstrate impartiality, independence, and accountability, it reinforces public trust in the fairness, integrity, and professionalism of the judicial system, promoting respect for the rule of law and the authority of the courts.

Reasoned Orders:

The issuance of reasoned orders by judges is a fundamental aspect of judicial accountability as it ensures transparency, provides a basis for review, and enhances public confidence in the judiciary. Reasoned orders provide transparency into the reasoning behind judicial decisions. By articulating the facts, legal principles, and reasoning that led to a particular decision, judges make their thought process accessible to the parties involved and the public at large. This transparency promotes accountability by allowing stakeholders to understand how and why a decision was reached.

Reasoned orders serve as a basis for review and appeal of judicial decisions. When parties disagree with a decision, they can appeal to higher courts for review. A well-reasoned order provides the appellate court with a clear understanding of the lower court’s decision-making process, facilitating a meaningful review and ensuring accountability for legal errors or misapplications of law. Reasoned orders contribute to the checks and balances within the judiciary. By documenting the rationale behind decisions, judges subject their own reasoning to scrutiny and accountability. This encourages judges to apply the law consistently, adhere to legal standards, and justify their decisions in accordance with established legal principles.

Reasoned orders hold judges accountable to legal standards and principles. By articulating how the law was applied to the facts of a case, judges demonstrate adherence to legal precedents, statutes, and constitutional provisions. This accountability promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in judicial decision-making.

Review and Oversight:

Review and oversight mechanisms are essential components of judicial accountability, as they provide checks and balances to ensure that judges act within the bounds of their authority and adhere to ethical standards. Review and oversight mechanisms allow for the examination of judicial decisions and actions to ensure they comply with legal standards, including statutory laws, constitutional provisions, and ethical codes of conduct. By reviewing judicial decisions, appellate courts can assess whether judges have correctly interpreted and applied the law, promoting accountability for adherence to legal principles. Review mechanisms, such as appellate review or judicial review of administrative actions, provide opportunities to identify errors, inconsistencies, or injustices in lower court decisions. Appellate courts can overturn decisions that are legally incorrect or unjust, correcting errors and ensuring accountability for judicial decision-making. Oversight mechanisms help prevent abuses of judicial power by providing mechanisms for reviewing and challenging decisions that exceed the scope of judicial authority or violate fundamental rights. Judicial review ensures that judges exercise their discretion within legal limits, promoting accountability for the fair and lawful exercise of judicial power.

Review and oversight mechanisms contribute to the development of consistent and uniform legal standards by ensuring that similar cases are treated similarly and that legal precedents are followed. Appellate courts establish binding precedent through their decisions, promoting accountability for consistency and predictability in the law. Review and oversight processes enhance transparency and public confidence in the judiciary by providing opportunities for public scrutiny of judicial decisions and actions. When judicial proceedings are subject to review, it fosters accountability by allowing the public to observe the reasoning behind judicial decisions and the application of legal standards.

Review and oversight mechanisms hold judges accountable for their conduct and decision-making. Appellate review, judicial disciplinary proceedings, and oversight by judicial commissions or councils ensure that judges are subject to consequences for misconduct, breaches of ethics, or violations of legal standards, promoting integrity and professionalism within the judiciary. Review and oversight processes facilitate learning and improvement within the judiciary by providing feedback on judicial performance and decision-making. Constructive criticism and analysis of judicial decisions help judges identify areas for improvement, enhance their legal reasoning skills, and promote accountability for continuous professional development.

Public Confidence:

Public confidence in the judiciary is closely linked to judicial accountability, as it reflects the trust and credibility that citizens have in the fairness, integrity, and impartiality of the judicial system. Public confidence in the judiciary enhances the legitimacy of judicial decisions. When citizens trust that judges are impartial, fair, and independent, they are more likely to accept and respect court rulings, even if they disagree with the outcomes. This promotes compliance with the law and reinforces the authority of the judiciary. Public confidence encourages judges to adhere to high ethical standards and conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism. Judges recognize that their decisions and actions are subject to public scrutiny and accountability, motivating them to maintain the trust and respect of the communities they serve.

Public confidence in the judiciary promotes respect for the rule of law, which is essential for upholding democratic principles and protecting individual rights and liberties. When citizens trust that the judiciary operates impartially and fairly, they are more likely to have confidence in the legal system and its ability to resolve disputes and administer justice. Public confidence creates pressure for robust accountability measures within the judiciary. Citizens expect judges to be held accountable for any misconduct, breaches of ethics, or failures to uphold legal standards. Accountability mechanisms, such as judicial review, disciplinary proceedings, and oversight by judicial commissions, are strengthened when public confidence is high, ensuring that judges are subject to appropriate scrutiny and consequences for their actions.

Public confidence fosters transparency in the judiciary by encouraging openness, accessibility, and public engagement with the legal system. When citizens have trust in the judiciary, they are more likely to support efforts to promote transparency, such as making court proceedings open to the public, providing access to judicial decisions and records, and facilitating public dialogue on legal issues. Public confidence encourages citizen participation and engagement with the judiciary. When citizens trust the judiciary to act impartially and fairly, they are more likely to seek redress through the courts, participate in legal proceedings, and engage in civic activities aimed at promoting accountability and transparency within the judicial system.

Public confidence in the judiciary is essential for preserving democratic values such as accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. When citizens have faith in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system, it strengthens democratic institutions and reinforces the checks and balances necessary for the functioning of a healthy democracy.

Checks and Balances:

Checks and balances are essential for maintaining judicial accountability by ensuring that the exercise of judicial power is subject to oversight, scrutiny, and accountability. Checks and balances operate within the framework of the separation of powers among branches of government, including the judiciary, legislature, and executive. This division of powers ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful or dominates the others, promoting accountability and preventing abuses of power.

Judicial review is a key mechanism for checks and balances within the judiciary. It allows courts to review the constitutionality and legality of laws, executive actions, and administrative decisions, ensuring that they comply with constitutional principles and legal standards. Judicial review promotes accountability by holding government actions accountable to the rule of law and protecting individual rights and liberties. Appellate courts provide another layer of checks and balances by reviewing decisions made by lower courts. Appellate review allows higher courts to correct errors, clarify legal principles, and ensure consistency and uniformity in the application of the law. By subjecting judicial decisions to appellate review, the judiciary promotes accountability for the fairness and accuracy of legal judgments.

Judicial accountability is reinforced by oversight mechanisms that monitor the conduct and performance of judges. These mechanisms may include judicial commissions, disciplinary bodies, or ethics committees responsible for investigating complaints, enforcing ethical standards, and imposing sanctions for misconduct. Oversight mechanisms promote accountability by holding judges accountable for their actions and decisions, maintaining public trust and confidence in the judiciary. The legislature plays a role in checks and balances by providing oversight of the judiciary through various means, such as confirmation hearings for judicial appointments, budgetary allocations for the judiciary, and legislative reforms affecting the structure and jurisdiction of the courts. Legislative oversight ensures accountability by subjecting judicial institutions to democratic scrutiny and ensuring that they operate within the bounds of their constitutional authority. While the executive branch typically does not directly oversee judicial decisions, it plays a role in checks and balances through its enforcement of court judgments and compliance with legal mandates. The executive ensures accountability by respecting judicial rulings, upholding the rule of law, and refraining from undue interference in the judicial process.

Thus, checks and balances are essential for maintaining judicial accountability by subjecting the exercise of judicial power to oversight, review, and accountability mechanisms. By promoting transparency, adherence to legal standards, and respect for the rule of law, checks and balances help ensure the integrity and credibility of the judiciary in a democratic society.

Professional Development:

Professional development is integral to maintaining judicial accountability by ensuring that judges possess the necessary skills, knowledge, and ethical standards to fulfil their duties effectively and uphold the rule of law. Professional development programs provide judges with opportunities to enhance their legal knowledge, judicial reasoning skills, and understanding of complex legal issues. By staying abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence, judges are better equipped to render informed decisions that uphold legal principles and promote accountability. Professional development initiatives often include training on judicial ethics, integrity, and conduct. Ethical standards are foundational to judicial accountability, as they guide judges in maintaining impartiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and upholding the highest standards of integrity and professionalism in their judicial roles.

Professional development reinforces the principle of judicial independence by empowering judges to exercise their discretion and adjudicate cases free from external influence or pressure. Training programs emphasize the importance of judicial autonomy, impartiality, and fairness, fostering accountability by enabling judges to act with confidence in upholding the rule of law. Professional development enables judges to adapt to evolving legal frameworks, societal norms, and technological advancements. By staying current with legal trends and innovations, judges can make informed decisions that reflect contemporary legal standards and promote accountability in addressing emerging legal challenges and complexities.

Professional development fosters collaboration and peer review among judges, enabling them to exchange ideas, share best practices, and learn from one another’s experiences. Peer review mechanisms contribute to accountability by providing constructive feedback, promoting consistency in judicial decision-making, and reinforcing ethical conduct and professionalism within the judiciary. Professional development initiatives contribute to building public confidence and trust in the judiciary by demonstrating a commitment to excellence, competence, and ethical conduct among judges. When the public sees judges engaging in continuous learning and improvement, it fosters trust in the judiciary’s ability to administer justice fairly, transparently, and accountably.

Professional development programs often align with established judicial standards, codes of conduct, and performance benchmarks. By adhering to these standards and engaging in ongoing professional development, judges demonstrate accountability to the legal profession, judicial institutions, and the broader community, thereby upholding the integrity and credibility of the judiciary.

These elements of judicial accountability are essential for ensuring the integrity, fairness, and effectiveness of the judicial system. By holding judges accountable for their conduct and decisions, society can uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Ethical Code for Judges:

Ethical codes for judges establish guidelines and standards of conduct that judges are expected to adhere to in the performance of their judicial duties. While specific ethical codes may vary by jurisdiction, they generally encompass principles of integrity, impartiality, independence, fairness, and professionalism.

• Integrity: Judges are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and moral character in their professional and personal conduct. They should avoid impropriety, corruption, or the appearance of impropriety that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
• Impartiality: Judges must act impartially and without bias or prejudice in the adjudication of cases. They should base their decisions solely on the law and the facts presented in court, without favouritism, personal bias, or external influence.
• Independence: Judges are required to maintain independence from political, economic, and other external influences that may compromise their ability to render fair and impartial judgments. They should exercise their discretion free from undue pressure or interference from outside sources.
• Fairness: Judges have a duty to ensure that all parties before the court are treated fairly and with respect. They should provide equal access to justice, afford litigants a full and fair opportunity to present their case, and administer justice without discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors.
• No man can be a judge in his own cause: The basic ethics principle is that no man can be judge in his own cause. The principle confines not only to the cause where the judge is an actual party to a case, but also to a case in which he has interest. A judge is not expected to adjudicate in a case if he has got interest therein.
• Confidentiality: Judges must maintain confidentiality in their judicial proceedings and refrain from disclosing confidential information obtained in the course of their duties. They should respect the privacy rights of litigants, witnesses, and other parties involved in legal proceedings.
• Professionalism: Judges are expected to conduct themselves with dignity, decorum, and professionalism in their interactions with litigants, attorneys, court staff, and the public. They should uphold the dignity and integrity of the judicial office and avoid conduct that could diminish public trust and confidence in the judiciary.
• Continuing Education and Development: Judges should engage in ongoing professional development and education to enhance their knowledge of the law, judicial skills, and ethical responsibilities. They should stay abreast of legal developments and best practices in order to discharge their duties effectively and responsibly.
• Accountability: Judges are accountable for their conduct and decisions. They should be open to criticism, feedback, and scrutiny of their actions, and they should be subject to appropriate disciplinary measures in cases of misconduct or ethical breaches.
• Public Confidence: Judges should strive to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the judiciary by upholding ethical standards, promoting transparency, and demonstrating a commitment to fairness, impartiality, and the rule of law.
• Distance from Parties: Since judging is not a profession but a way of life, the judge must maintain distance between himself and the parties to the dispute and their lawyers during the conduct of the trial. Now a days the growth of a new caste in legal profession who thrive not by intellectual or professional capabilities but by utilizing their close connection with the judges. The growth of this suspicious trend can be controlled by avoiding meeting frequently in private with practicing lawyers.
• No Participation in Social Functions: It is recommended that judges should be selective in attending social functions. If they decide to attend any private function, they must ask for the list of invites. In Ram Pratap Sharma v, Daya Nand, 1977 AIR 809 case, the Supreme Court issued a note of caution to the effect that a judge should not to accept any invitation and hospitality of any business or commercial organization or of any political party or of any club or organization run or sectarian, communal or parochial line.
• Avoid Media Publicity: As far as possible a judge should keep away himself from the media. He should keep himself away from expressing his views in media on matters either pending before him or likely to appear for judicial consideration otherwise he may be accused of prejudging the issue and his neutrality may be questioned thereby.

Ethical codes for judges play a crucial role in promoting integrity, professionalism, and accountability within the judiciary, and they serve as a guide for judges in fulfilling their ethical responsibilities and upholding the values of justice and the rule of law.

Lack of Judicial Accountability in India:

The concept of judicial accountability in India has faced challenges and criticisms over the years. The lack of judicial accountability in India has been a subject of debate and concern for various stakeholders, including legal experts, civil society organizations, and citizens. While the Indian judiciary is renowned for its independence and commitment to upholding the rule of law, there are several factors contributing to perceived deficiencies in judicial accountability:

• Opaque Selection Process: The process for judicial appointments, particularly to higher courts like the Supreme Court and High Courts, has been criticized for its lack of transparency. The opacity of the collegium system, where judges themselves have a significant role in selecting and appointing their colleagues, has led to concerns about favouritism, lack of diversity, and insufficient scrutiny in the appointment process.
• Limited Mechanisms for Oversight: While the Constitution of India provides for impeachment of judges by Parliament for proven misconduct or incapacity, this process has rarely been utilized due to its complexity and high threshold for success. Moreover, the lack of an independent and robust mechanism for oversight and accountability beyond impeachment has been a significant limitation in ensuring judicial accountability.
• Delays and Backlogs: The Indian judicial system is burdened with extensive delays and backlogs, leading to prolonged litigation and delayed justice for citizens. While judges are not solely responsible for systemic delays, there is criticism that the judiciary has not adequately addressed these issues, impacting its accountability to the public.
• Limited Transparency in Disciplinary Proceedings: The disciplinary proceedings against judges accused of misconduct or incompetence lack transparency and are often conducted behind closed doors. The lack of public disclosure about the nature of complaints, the progress of investigations, and the outcomes of disciplinary actions has raised questions about the accountability of the judiciary.
• Allegations of Corruption and Nepotism: While instances of corruption or nepotism within the judiciary are relatively rare, allegations of judicial misconduct, including bribery, favouritism, and abuse of power, have occasionally surfaced. While these cases may be isolated, they undermine public trust and confidence in the judiciary and highlight the need for robust accountability mechanisms.
• Challenges in Redressal of Grievances: The mechanisms for redressing grievances against judicial misconduct or incompetence are perceived as inadequate. The process for filing complaints against judges, the lack of transparency in disciplinary proceedings, and the limited scope for effective remedies have led to concerns about the accountability of the judiciary.
• Limited Public Participation: There is limited scope for public participation in the judicial process and decision-making, which undermines accountability to the public. While public confidence in the judiciary is crucial for its accountability, there is limited opportunity for public engagement, feedback, and oversight in judicial proceedings.

Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive reforms to enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust in the judiciary. This may involve measures such as reforming the judicial appointment process to ensure greater transparency and diversity, establishing independent oversight mechanisms for judicial accountability, improving efficiency in case management to reduce delays, and promoting greater public participation and transparency in disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, ensuring judicial accountability is essential for upholding the rule of law and preserving the integrity and credibility of the judiciary in India.

Justice V. Ramaswami’s Case:

On May 11, 1993, 205 Lok Sabha members belonging to the Congress and its allies initiated the impeachment proceedings against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by voting. Despite the motion for removal being passed unanimously by the members who voted, it failed. Therefore, the result was that despite a high-power inquiry committee of three eminent judges who came to the conclusion that Ramaswami was guilty of several acts of gross misbehaviour which warranted his removal, the judge was entitled to discharge judicial functions from the highest court of the land. After failure of impeachment motion, Ramaswami was persuaded to resign but it gave rise to several grave issues for the future of the administration of justice in this country and indeed for probity in public life in general.

Justice Ashok Kumar Case:

Justice Ashok Kumar was appointed an additional judge in April 2003 but it is stated that the Collegium of three senior judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court unanimously decided not to confirm him as a permanent judge in August 2005 because of adverse reports regarding his integrity. It is alleged that despite this, an extensions was given to him as an additional judge, and finally came to be confirmed in February 2007 on the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s recommendation, which was criticized as made without consulting other members of the Collegium of judges, in complete violation of several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This laid down that in a case of appointment of judges, it should be appointed with the majority view of the Collegium of senior judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not by chief justice alone. The 9 Judge judgments also provided that an appointment made without consulting the Collegium was challengeable and could be struck down in a judicial proceeding.

Justice Soumitra Sen Case:

Chief justice of India recommended remove justice Sen by impeachment proceeding for the offence of misappropriating funds received by him as a court receiver and thereafter for giving false explanations to the High Court. The Chief Justice made this recommendation on the basis of a report filed by a committee of three Judges, who gave conclusion that he committed several acts of serious misconduct. It was alleged that despite these acts of misconduct were the subject matter of proceedings pending against him in the Calcutta High Court, yet he came to be appointed during that time, due to the lack of transparency in the matter of appointments. It is criticized as one of the examples of lack of judicial accountability.

Justice Ashwini Kumar Mata Case:

The proposed appointment of Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mata who was recommended for appointment as Judge to the Delhi High Court was under dispute. It was alleged that Mr. Mata purchased one floor of a house in Safdarjang Enclave from a builder who had an agreement with the owner of the plot that he would construct the building and hand over three floors to the owner. The remaining two floors would remain with him which he could sell only after handing over possession of the three floors to the owner. Despite the fact, that the builder neither completed the construction of the building nor handed over the possession of the floors belonging to the owner to him, Shri Mata entered into an agreement for purchasing one of the floors which was to go to the builder from him. Thereafter it was alleged that Shri Mata used the said agreement with the builder to seek mutation of that floor in his name. In his application, he attached a copy of his agreement with the builder, containing the forged signatures of the owner, Mr Joshi. These facts were learnt only after the recommendation for the appointment of Shri Mata had already been sent to the Law Ministry by the Collegium of the High Court. In this case it was stated that even if it was not certain that Mr. Mata participated in the forgery of his agreement with the builder, it would be better to err on the side of caution by not appointing him, instead of being faced with a situation as that with regard to Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court.

Steps to Improve Judicial Accountability:

Improving judicial accountability in India requires comprehensive reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, independence, efficiency, and public trust in the judiciary. Here are several steps that could be taken to improve judicial accountability:

• Reform Judicial Appointment Process: Implement reforms to the judicial appointment process to enhance transparency, diversity, and meritocracy. Consider establishing a transparent and independent mechanism for judicial appointments that includes clear criteria, public disclosure of vacancies, and opportunities for public participation and scrutiny. Revisit and refine the process of judicial appointments to ensure transparency and accountability. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) can be designed to have representation from the judiciary, executive, and civil society, ensuring a balanced and accountable selection process.
• Establish Independent Oversight Mechanisms: Create independent oversight bodies responsible for monitoring judicial conduct, investigating complaints of judicial misconduct, and imposing disciplinary measures when necessary. These bodies should have the authority to conduct impartial investigations, recommend disciplinary actions, and ensure transparency in the disciplinary process. Establish an independent and transparent mechanism for evaluating the performance of judges. This can involve regular assessments based on various parameters, including the quality and timeliness of judgments, adherence to legal principles, and conduct on and off the bench.
• Enhance Transparency in Disciplinary Proceedings: Improve transparency in disciplinary proceedings against judges accused of misconduct or incompetence. Provide for public disclosure of the nature of complaints, the progress of investigations, and the outcomes of disciplinary actions, while respecting the privacy rights of individuals involved.
• Strengthen Judicial Ethics and Codes of Conduct: Strengthen judicial ethics and codes of conduct to provide clear guidance on expected standards of behaviour, integrity, impartiality, and professionalism for judges. Ensure that judges receive regular training on ethical standards and principles, with opportunities for ongoing education and development. Develop and enforce a robust code of conduct for judges that clearly outlines ethical standards, guidelines for professional behaviour, and consequences for violations. This code should cover aspects such as conflicts of interest, impartiality, and accountability.
• Promote Diversity in the Judiciary: Take proactive measures to promote diversity in the judiciary, including gender diversity, representation of marginalized communities, and inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences. Implement policies to encourage recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse judicial candidates.
• Improve Efficiency and Reduce Delays: Implement measures to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and reduce delays and backlogs in court proceedings. This could include investing in technology, increasing judicial capacity, streamlining court procedures, and promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Enhance Public Engagement and Access to Justice: Promote greater public engagement and access to justice by increasing transparency, accessibility, and responsiveness in the judicial process. Provide information and resources to help citizens understand their rights, navigate the legal system, and participate effectively in legal proceedings.
• Use Technology: Central Information System should be developed which shows the details of the cases like next date, rojnama, et.c and stages of those cases pending in the courts of law.
• Strengthen Whistle Blower Protections: Establish robust whistle blower protections for judicial employees, lawyers, and other stakeholders to report instances of judicial misconduct or corruption without fear of reprisal. Ensure that mechanisms are in place to investigate and address allegations of wrongdoing promptly and impartially.
• Encourage Judicial Accountability through Peer Review: Foster a culture of accountability and professional responsibility within the judiciary by encouraging peer review, collaboration, and constructive feedback among judges. Promote opportunities for judges to engage in dialogue, share best practices, and learn from one another’s experiences.
• Enhance Public Confidence and Trust: Take proactive measures to enhance public confidence and trust in the judiciary through outreach, education, and engagement initiatives. Communicate transparently with the public about judicial processes, decisions, and reforms, and solicit feedback to address concerns and build trust over time.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Enact and implement a comprehensive Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill that outlines the code of conduct for judges, establishes mechanisms for accountability, and provides for the investigation and removal of judges in cases of misconduct.

By implementing these steps, India can strengthen judicial accountability, promote the rule of law, and uphold the integrity and credibility of its judiciary, ultimately advancing access to justice and protecting the rights and liberties of its citizens.

Initiatives by Judiciary:

Following are the different steps which the judiciary is taking for maintaining its accountability. Those steps are:

• Central Information System: This system shows the details of the cases like next date, rojnama etc and stages of those cases pending in the courts of law.
• Complaints with Affidavit: This is the second way by which the judiciary is entertaining the complaints. Initially, only plane complaints were used to be entertained but after words it was found that vague complaints were filed against the judges therefore now the complaints with affidavits are only entertained.
• Appeal: By way of appeal also we can make the judiciary accountable as the orders and judgments can be challenged before the higher judiciary therefore the judgments and orders of lower judiciary are accountable to the higher judiciary.
• Reasoned Orders: Passing a reasoned order is also a part of accountability. It is always expected that a judge should always pass a reasoned order. Passing of a reasoned order makes it clear that why a judge has come to a particular conclusion while passing that judgment.

The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010:

Main provisions in the Bill are as follows:

• The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill tries to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges. It also establishes processes for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It also requires judges to declare details of their and their family members’ assets and liabilities.
• The Bill establishes the National Judicial Oversight Committee, the Complaints Scrutiny Panel and an investigation committee. Any person can make a complaint against a judge to the Oversight Committee on grounds of ‘misbehaviour’. Currently any action against a sitting judge of SC or HC is taken by Parliament only. If adequate number of legislators can pass a motion an inquiry committee is setup for investigation. This committee consists of a SC judge, Chief justice of the High court to which the judge belongs and an eminent jurist. If this panel finds the judge guilty only then by a special majority in both houses can he be removed by the President. Hence it is regarded as an overreach of executive into judicial mechanisms.
• A motion for removal of a judge on grounds of misbehaviour can also be moved in Parliament. Such a motion will be referred for further inquiry to the Oversight Committee.
• Complaints and inquiries against judges will be confidential and frivolous complaints will be penalised.
• The Oversight Committee may issue advisories or warnings to judges, and also recommend their removal to the President.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, judicial accountability is a cornerstone of a fair, transparent, and effective judicial system. It ensures that judges are held accountable for their decisions, conduct, and adherence to ethical standards, thereby upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and fostering public confidence in the judiciary. Through mechanisms such as transparency, oversight, reasoned orders, and adherence to ethical codes, judicial accountability promotes integrity, impartiality, and professionalism within the judiciary. However, challenges such as opaque selection processes, delays in justice delivery, limited oversight mechanisms, and instances of corruption or bias underscore the need for continuous reform and improvement. By addressing these challenges and implementing measures to enhance transparency, independence, efficiency, and public trust, judicial systems can strengthen accountability, uphold the principles of justice, and advance the rule of law in societies around the world. Ultimately, judicial accountability is essential for safeguarding democracy, protecting human rights, and ensuring equal access to justice for all.

For More Articles on Constitutional Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here