Judicial Accountability in India: Challenges and Mechanisms

Syllabus:

 GS – 2- Judicial accountability, Supreme court , judges , impeachment

Focus :

The article explores the mechanisms for judicial accountability in India, emphasizing the difficulties in holding judges of the higher judiciary accountable. It examines the impeachment process, significant case studies like Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen, issues with the current framework, and the need for reforms to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the judiciary.

Judicial Accountability in India: Challenges and Mechanisms

 Introduction

  • Judicial accountability ensures the integrity and trust of the public in the judiciary.
  • Unlike elected representatives, judges enjoy greater immunity, making accountability mechanisms complex.
  • Instances of alleged judicial misconduct have exposed the limitations of the current system.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 124(4) and (5): Define the process for removing Supreme Court judges for “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”
  • Article 217: Similar provisions for High Court judges.
  • Article 222: Allows the transfer of judges, ensuring judicial independence but not necessarily accountability.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

  • Sets up the procedure for investigating allegations against judges.
  • A three-member committee is established, comprising:
    • A Supreme Court judge,
    • A Chief Justice of a High Court,
    • An eminent jurist.

Voting Requirements in Parliament

  • A motion for removal must be supported by:
    • A two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses.
    • An absolute majority of the total membership in each House.

Impeachment Process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

Steps in the Process

  • Initiation:
    • A removal motion must be signed by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
    • The motion is submitted to the Speaker or the Vice-President.
  • Committee Investigation:
    • If admitted, a three-member committee investigates the allegations.
    • The committee functions like a trial court.
  • Parliamentary Vote:
    • If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion is debated and voted upon in Parliament.
    • Both Houses must approve the motion with a two-thirds majority.
  • Removal:
    • Upon successful passage of the motion, the President orders the judge’s removal.

Limitations of the Process

  • Requires overwhelming political consensus, which is rarely achieved.
  • Resignation by judges before completion of the process circumvents accountability.

Case Studies Illustrating Accountability Challenges

Justice V. Ramaswami

  • Allegations:
    • Extravagant expenses on official residence.
    • Continuation of colonial practices such as the use of maces in court.
  • Outcome:
    • Found guilty by a three-member committee.
    • Impeachment motion defeated due to abstentions in Lok Sabha.
    • Continued to hold office and retired with full benefits.
  • Significance:
    • First judge to face impeachment in India.
    • Led to the adoption of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.

Justice Soumitra Sen

  • Allegations:
    • Misappropriation of ₹33.21 lakh as a court-appointed receiver.
    • Misrepresentation of facts before the Calcutta High Court.
  • Outcome:
    • Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion with an overwhelming majority.
    • Resigned before the Lok Sabha could debate the motion.
  • Significance:
    • Highlighted the issue of judges resigning to avoid accountability.

Justice P.D. Dinakaran

  • Allegations:
    • Misappropriation of over 300 acres of land in Tamil Nadu.
    • Corruption charges and abuse of judicial power.
  • Outcome:
    • Resigned before the three-member committee could complete its investigation.
  • Significance:
    • Demonstrated how resignation loopholes undermine judicial accountability.

Issues with the Current Mechanism

  • High Threshold for Impeachment-Impeachment requires political will and consensus, which are often difficult to achieve.
  • Resignation Loophole-Judges can resign to evade investigation or impeachment.
  • Immunity and Perks-Even judges found guilty continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits.
  • Lack of Transparency-Proceedings are opaque, reducing public confidence in the system.
  • Infrequent Usage-Impeachment has been attempted only a handful of times since independence.

The Need for Reforms

  • Strengthening the Judicial Inquiry Process-Continue investigations even if a judge resigns.
  • Amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act to address resignation loopholes.
  • Ensuring Transparency-Make judicial accountability proceedings public to build trust.
  • Revising Post-Retirement Benefits-Link benefits to a clean judicial record.
  • Prevent judges found guilty from holding future public offices.
  • Reforming the Collegium System-Introduce a Judicial Appointments Commission for greater accountability.
  • Educate citizens about judicial accountability mechanisms through outreach programs.

Conclusion

  • Judicial accountability is crucial for upholding the rule of law and public trust.
  • While the existing framework has laid the groundwork, significant gaps remain.
  • Addressing these challenges through comprehensive reforms will strengthen the judiciary and preserve its independence while ensuring it remains answerable to the people.

Associated Article

https://universalinstitutions.com/supreme-court/#:~:text=Article%20124(1)%20of%20the,law%2C%20prescribes%20a%20larger%20number.

Mains UPSC Question GS 2

Discuss the challenges in ensuring judicial accountability in India, with a focus on the impeachment process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Suggest reforms to strengthen the accountability mechanisms for the higher judiciary. (15 marks)