ARE EXISTING MECHANISMS EFFECTIVE IN COMBATING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION?

THE CONTEXT: The recent recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma and the initiation of an in-house inquiry by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has reignited the debate on judicial accountability, institutional transparency, and the limits of internal mechanisms within the judiciary. The event has also rekindled discussions on broader systemic reforms, including the judicial appointments process, impeachment procedures, contempt laws, and legislative oversight.

CURRENT FRAMEWORK OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA:

IMPEACHMENT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM

 Constitutional Provision and Legal Basis

• • The process of judicial impeachment is enshrined under Article 124(4) and Article 217(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution for Supreme Court and High Court judges respectively.
  • A judge can be removed only on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” through a motion passed by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, plus an absolute majority in both Houses of Parliament.

 Practical Application and Challenges

• • Rarely Invoked Successfully: No judge has been impeached till date despite multiple attempts (e.g., Justice Soumitra Sen, Justice P.D. Dinakaran).
  • The procedure is more political than legal, requiring political consensus, which is difficult in a fragmented Parliament.
  • Creates a false sense of deterrence without actual enforcement and is unsuitable for addressing misconduct below the threshold of removal.

IN-HOUSE INQUIRY PROCEDURE

 Genesis and Objectives

• • Developed post the Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) ruling, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for protecting judicial officers from arbitrary arrest and prosecution.
  • Institutionalized to allow preliminary internal scrutiny of allegations before permitting any formal legal action.

 Procedure and Structure

• • A three-judge panel is usually constituted by the Chief Justice of India to examine serious complaints against judges.
  • The inquiry report is advisory in nature, and depending on findings, may result in resignation, voluntary retirement, or reference to the President for impeachment proceedings.

 Strengths

• • Shields the judiciary from frivolous or malicious allegations, especially in politically sensitive cases.
  • Allows swift and confidential examination of judicial conduct without compromising court dignity.

 Criticisms and Gaps

• • Lacks statutory backing—the procedure is not defined by legislation but based on internal norms.
  • No binding enforcement mechanism and lacks mandatory transparency; inquiry reports are not public by default.
  • As seen in the Justice Nirmal Yadav case, despite a recommendation to prosecute, the case languished for over a decade, highlighting enforcement paralysis.

THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

 Debate Over the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Background and Constitutional Context

• • The NJAC was introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, to replace the opaque Collegium System, but was struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) on grounds of violating the basic structure doctrine, specifically judicial independence.
  • The Justice Yashwant Varma episode and recurring issues of judicial misconduct and executive opacity in appointments have revived calls for a recalibrated NJAC model, focusing on transparency without compromising autonomy.

• • The executive already plays an influential backstage role, including:
    • Informal consultations before names are finalized.
    • De facto veto power by delaying or denying recommendations.
  • The Government may use it as a “blank cheque” in judicial appointments, which could politicize the judiciary.

• • The system has devolved from a “Collegium” to a “search-and-selection” model, due to the executive’s selective approval process.
  • Emphasizes that transparency in reasoning and procedure is more important than the identity of the appointing authority.
  • There is an erosion of trust in appointments due to lack of institutional accountability.

 Philosophical and Constitutional Dilemma

• • The central dilemma remains: How to ensure judicial independence without insulating the judiciary from accountability?
  • The existing collegium system is non-statutory, opaque, and beyond judicial review, yet executive participation raises fears of encroachment and bias.

 Judicial Precedent

• • In the Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998), the Court evolved the collegium system to preserve judicial independence—but without a statutory framework or external oversight.

 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

 Pick-and-Choose Approach and the Deliberate Delay Tactic

• • The executive has adopted a “pick-and-choose” model, selectively approving or withholding collegium-recommended names.
  •  In 2023, the government delayed appointments of advocates Saurabh Kirpal and others on ideological or security-related grounds, despite reiterated recommendations.
  • This undermines constitutional conventions and reduces public trust in the integrity of the selection process.

• • The delay in appointing Justice Akil Kureshi (despite collegium recommendation) led to widespread criticism of executive overreach and raised questions about merit vs political expediency.

 Transparency and Collegium Resolutions

• • Under CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the collegium began publishing reasons for its recommendations, a first step toward institutional transparency.
  • However, this practice has been discontinued, diminishing visibility into merit-based evaluation and opening the door to allegations of favouritism or opacity.
  •  Justice Madan Lokur (retd.) has called for a statutory framework for the collegium system to ensure accountability and consistency in appointments.

 BROADER GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS:

• • The legitimacy of a judiciary hinges not just on independence, but also on the perceived fairness and objectivity in appointments.
  • A skewed process can undermine the public’s perception of impartial justice, jeopardize the doctrine of separation of powers, and lead to a democratic deficit in governance.

JUDICIAL STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY BILL, 2010

• • The Bill does not effectively address key issues like nepotism or conflict of interest.
    • Need for Clear Standards: Mandatory disclosure of relatives practising in the same court; either transfer the judge or disallow the relative.
    • Institutionalizing existing informal peer-review mechanisms by involving bar associations and senior judges to pre-empt corruption.

Contempt of Court and Public Scrutiny

• • Issue: Whether contempt laws should be liberalized for more open discourse on judicial conduct.
  • Concerns: Risk of misuse if judges wield contempt arbitrarily.
  • Balanced Approach: Must differentiate between vexatious allegations and legitimate criticism aimed at institutional reform.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Codify the In-House Judicial Inquiry Procedure: The current in-house mechanism for investigating judicial misconduct must be formalized through a statutory framework with defined timelines, procedural safeguards, and provisions for limited public disclosure. This will enhance transparency without compromising judicial independence. Codification will also reduce arbitrariness and build institutional credibility in dealing with allegations of impropriety.
  • Establish an Independent Judicial Ethics and Oversight Commission (JEOC): A constitutionally backed, independent oversight body must be created, comprising retired judges, legal experts, bar representatives, and civil society members to investigate judicial ethics violations. It would function similarly to the Lokpal, ensuring both internal scrutiny and external accountability. This would plug institutional gaps and build systemic trust in judicial discipline.
  • Reform the Judicial Appointments System via NJAC 2.0: A restructured National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), balancing inputs from the judiciary, executive, and independent members, should replace the opaque collegium system. It must be constitutionally insulated and operate with transparency in eligibility, selection criteria, and feedback processes. This reform would uphold independence while ensuring merit and diversity in appointments.
  • Institutionalize Peer Review and Bar Feedback Mechanisms: Introduce a formal, periodic peer-review process and bar association feedback loop to assess judicial performance on integrity, conduct, and case management. Confidential 360-degree assessments would add objectivity to evaluations and inform promotions or disciplinary actions. This will help ensure internal quality assurance and promote judicial accountability.
  • Appoint Judicial Communications Officers to Counter Misinformation: Designate official communications personnel in the Supreme Court and High Courts to manage public statements, clarify inquiries, and proactively tackle misinformation. This will prevent speculation in sensitive matters and preserve public trust in judicial processes. It aligns with global best practices in institutional communication and crisis management.
  • Uphold Natural Justice and Protect Judges’ Reputational Rights: All reforms must ensure that judges under scrutiny are accorded due process, including timely notice, fair hearing, and confidentiality before guilt is established. Premature disclosures must be avoided to protect the dignity and personal reputation of judicial officers under Article 21. A balanced approach is essential to preserve both transparency and fairness.

THE CONCLUSION:

A judiciary anchored in transparency, ethical accountability, and institutional resilience is vital to sustaining India’s democratic legitimacy—where over 4.9 crore pending cases (as per NJDG, 2024) demand both public trust and systemic reform. Empowering internal scrutiny through codified mechanisms, balanced appointments, and participatory oversight can future-proof the justice delivery system while preserving its constitutional sanctity.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain. 2019

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Judicial accountability must evolve from opaque self-regulation to a transparent and constitutionally safeguarded framework. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for judicial accountability in India. Suggest a comprehensive roadmap for reform.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/are-existing-mechanisms-effective-in-combating-judicial-corruption/article69436170.ece

Spread the Word