THE CONTEXT: In 2019, allegations against then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi by a Supreme Court employee spotlighted inadequacies in India’s in‑house judicial accountability system—unrepresented complainants, lack of transparency, and procedural inequities.
-
- The existing regime relies largely on impeachment (Articles 124–218 of the Indian Constitution & Judges Inquiry Act, 1968) or non‑statutory in‑house peer review, lacking external oversight, public accountability, or procedural safeguards.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & TENSIONS: INDEPENDENCE VS ACCOUNTABILITY
-
- Judicial independence is necessary for impartial adjudication, yet neutrality is the real objective.
- Overemphasising independence without accountability undermines legitimacy and public trust.
- Accountability mechanisms—ranging from impeachment to performance reviews—should balance independence, impartiality, propriety, and integrity, as outlined in the Bangalore Principles
CURRENT INDIAN FRAMEWORK
Hard Accountability – Impeachment
-
- Constitutional mechanism requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority in both Houses.
- Attempted rarely (e.g., Justices Ramaswami, Soumitra Sen), with no successful removal to date—illustrating political impracticality.
Soft Accountability – In-house Mechanism
-
- Non-statutory, internal, presided over by judges and recommended by the CJI.
- Lacks formal procedures: complainants receive no representation, evidence disclosure, or transparency; orders are not shared; committee composition is opaque.
- Structural problems: no binding authority, no public record of complaints, and no consequences for non-compliance.
Performance Evaluation
-
- Lower courts use confidential annual reports, but no similar mechanism exists for High Courts or Supreme Court.
- Quality of judgment, disposal rates, and temperament remain unassessed formally.
GLOBAL COMPARISONS & BEST PRACTICES:
| Country | Accountability Mechanism | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office | Statutory office; sanctions incl. reprimand/suspension; 2,147 complaints (2017 18), 39 actions |
| USA | Judicial Councils & statutes (1980,2002) | Hybrid: self-regulated peer reviews + impeachment for serious misconduct. |
| Australia (NSW) | Judicial Commission | Statutory body handling complaints, education, and reports to Parliament. |
-
- Key lessons: structured external institutions, transparent procedures, statutory basis, graded sanctions, education/training modules, and data-driven oversight.
THE ISSUES:
-
- Opaque Collegium system: Appointment lacks measurable criteria and representation.
- Impunity vs secrecy: In‑house processes favor the institution over fair redress.
- Absence of performance metrics: No systematic review of judgment quality or judicial conduct.
- Gender‑bias and POSH norms: Despite Vishakha Guidelines, internal mechanisms fail to apply to higher judiciary properly.
- Public distrust & low legitimacy: Allegations of conspiracy and arbitrary handling foster cynicism.
THE WAY FORWARD:
Enactment of a Statutory Judicial Accountability Law
-
- Establish an independent Judicial Council with a judiciary majority.
- Define graded accountability: warnings, suspension, removal; ensure committee reports trigger automated removal proceedings without novelties in Parliament.
Detailed Code of Judicial Conduct
-
- Institutionalize the Bangalore Principles into a binding, contextual Indian code, addressing social engagements, conflict of interest, bias, recusal, etc.
- Make compliance mandatory and notify infractions via the Judicial Council.
Performance Evaluation System
-
- Launch an anonymous, aggregate, annual review on judgment quality, timeliness, ethics, and public feedback.
- Use insights for judicial training, case reallocation, or advisory services.
Gender‑Sensitive Redress Mechanism
-
- Apply Vishakha norms: legal representation, confidentiality, time-bound inquiry, and external oversight—mandatory even for Supreme Court.
Transparency & Data–Driven Governance
-
- Government to publish annual judicial statistics—caseload, disposition rates, complaints received, disciplinary actions invoked.
- Integrate the judiciary under the Lokpal/Ombudsman model for minor misconduct (as in Sweden).
Institutional & Educational Measures
-
- Expand National Mission for Justice Delivery to include ethics and accountability training for judges.
- Make judicial orientation a part of law school curricula—championed by Justice Chavan (‘Shaping the Judges’).
THE CONCLUSION:
A robust accountability framework need not compromise judicial independence. By blending statutory oversight, internal evaluation, ethical norms, performance metrics, and transparent governance, India can forge a judiciary that is impartial, credible, and fit for the democratic age. Judicial institutions must embrace reform to maintain the public’s “trust in justice”—a sine qua non of democracy.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the existing accountability mechanisms for judges in India in the backdrop of recent controversies. Evaluate their adequacy and suggest reforms, drawing upon global best practices while ensuring judicial independence.
SOURCE:
https://thewire.in/law/cji-ranjan-gogoi-supreme-court-judiciary
Spread the Word