Ensuring Fair Justice: Protecting Judges and Judiciary Integrity

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Judiciary, Fundamental Rights , Judicial Review , Separation of Powers , Judgements & Cases

Focus:

Recent allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma have reignited debates around judicial accountability and media trials. Concerns over premature judgments, public scrutiny, and the need for procedural fairness have brought the spotlight back on in-house mechanisms and constitutional safeguards essential to uphold judicial independence and public trust in the judiciary.

Crisis of Public Trust in Judiciary:

a. Alarming Dip in Confidence Levels

  • Recent C-Voter–India Today survey shows a disturbing trend in public perception:
    • Only 30% of people fully trust the judiciary.
    • 12% express partial trust.
    • A staggering 48% report no trust at all.
  • Indicates a growing crisis of institutional credibility in the Indian judicial system.

b. Judicial Voices Reflect Ground Reality

  • Justice Abhay S Oka, in a recent lecture, warned against complacency:
    • Courts have long assumed the public trusts them.
    • But real-world feedback from rural India suggests declining faith among common citizens.

Due Process in Allegations Against Judges:

a. In-House Procedure for Judges

  • Allegations against sitting High Court judges must follow institutional protocol:
    • Initiated by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
    • Conducted by a three-member committee: two Chief Justices and one High Court judge.
    • Ensures a systematic and confidential approach to judicial complaints.

b. Importance of Internal Scrutiny First

  • Police are part of the executive, and direct handover of allegations bypasses:
    • The principle of separation of powers.
    • Institutional autonomy of the judiciary.
  • With the government being the largest litigant in courts (50% of cases), such handovers can threaten judicial independence.

c. Media Trial Undermines Justice

  • Premature public and media judgments:
    • Violate the presumption of innocence.
    • Risk converting allegations into perceptions of guilt.
  • Judges, bound by judicial propriety, cannot publicly defend themselves, leaving them vulnerable.

Procedural Safeguards Across Institutions:

a. Legal Protections for Public Officials

  • Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act):
    • Prohibits investigation against public servants without prior sanction.
  • Similar safeguards exist under:
    • Section 19 of PC Act – requires sanction before court cognisance.
    • Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (now repealed but inspiration for 2018 amendment).

b. Parallel Mechanisms in Lokayukta and Impeachment

  • Lokayukta Act:
    • Mandates a preliminary inquiry.
    • Headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with judicial representation.
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:
    • Requires investigation by a panel including an SC judge, HC Chief Justice, and jurist.
    • Ensures impartial and dignified inquiry before proceeding to impeachment.

c. Supreme Court’s Observations

  • In Lalita Kumari case, SC upheld preliminary inquiry for:
    • Public servants, private disputes, doctors in negligence cases, and journalists in free speech matters.
  • Objective: Ensure procedural fairness, not shield the guilty.

Dignity, Silence, and the Media Dilemma:

a. Judges’ Inability to Respond

  • Unlike other professionals, judges:
    • Are bound by judicial conduct to maintain silence.
    • Cannot issue personal clarifications or engage in media battles.
  • This places them at an inherent disadvantage, especially in the age of viral media.

b. Media Trials & Digital Prejudices

  • Trial by media often distorts the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
  • The digital ecosystem amplifies unverified accusations, harming personal and institutional reputations.

c. Restatement of Judicial Ethics

  • According to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life:
    • Judges must avoid controversies and remain impartial.
    • Allegations should be handled through structured institutional mechanisms, not public narratives.

Distinguishing Impropriety from Corruption:

a. Cash Possession ≠ Corruption

  • India remains a cash-reliant economy, especially in rural and informal sectors.
  • Even public officials may legitimately possess cash, through:
    • Agricultural income, inheritance, sale of property, or jewelry.

b. Need for Context & Evidence

  • Impropriety may involve lapses in judgment, but doesn’t imply criminal intent.
  • Corruption, however, involves misuse of public office for private gain, which must be proven:
    • Beyond reasonable doubt, with clear evidence that assets are disproportionate to income.

c. Judicial Precedents on Proof & Exoneration

  • Courts have acquitted individuals when legitimate explanations were presented.
  • Possession of cash without explanation may raise suspicion, but does not automatically amount to guilt.

Conclusion: Justice in Method and Outcome

  • Judges are citizens first, and hence entitled to presumption of innocence like everyone else.
  • The judiciary’s credibility depends not just on its independence, but also on its fairness and integrity.
  • Institutional trust cannot be compromised by trial by media or public speculation.
  • Legal processes must operate within the constitutional framework, respecting the rights of the accused and maintaining procedural propriety.
  • The system must uphold justice not just in outcomes, but also in methods.

Source: IE

Mains Practice Question :


 Discuss the constitutional and institutional safeguards available for handling allegations against sitting judges. How can India ensure judicial accountability while preserving judicial independence? Examine the role of media and public discourse in maintaining a balance between transparency, dignity of office, and the principle of presumption of innocence in such cases.