Examining the Concept and Mechanisms of Judicial Accountability in the Legal Landscape of India

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution is the nation’s cornerstone, and it has created the Supreme Court and High Courts as guardians of justice. Their mission is not only to provide justice to society, but also to guarantee that the Legislative and Executive branches do not exceed their jurisdiction and carry out their responsibilities in line with the Constitution. The court has been critical in interpreting constitutional provisions, overturning presidential orders that infringe basic rights, and maintaining the rule of law. From the “Basic Structure Doctrine[1]” to the “Natural Justice Principle[2]” the judiciary has gone a long way in its role as a steward of the Constitution rather than just an adjudicating institution.

The judiciary has grown so strong over time that it now has the ability to nominate to the Supreme Court and High Courts through collegium processes, establishing a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The existing nomination process lacks openness and accountability, and effective methods to retain independence while guaranteeing responsibility are urgently needed.

The judiciary is a critical component of the democratic system, and its purpose is to repair any damage done by the government or the executive, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The rule of law is the foundation of democracy, and the court is in charge of enforcing it. The government is accountable to the people who elect them, and the court is crucial in upholding the Constitution, enforcing the law, and defending fundamental rights.

However, the judiciary, like any other institution, is prone to corruption and mismanagement. Accountability is required, which is the obligation of everyone who wields public authority. Judges should not be immune to criticism, and the principle of responsibility should extend to everyone in positions of power[3].

Judges are human individuals who control the courts, and their judgements have an impact on the lives of people in society. The recent example in Bihar exemplifies how a lack of trust in the law may lead to vigilantism. As a result, accountability is critical to preserving the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of the Constitution. Many governments throughout the world are now guaranteeing that judges will be held accountable.[4]

Legal activity is required to avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a single body and to guarantee that all governmental organs perform their functions properly. At the same time, judicial independence is critical to ensuring that judges behave compassionately, uphold the legislation established by the Constitution, and are not afraid of making the wrong decision.

JUDGES CODE OF CONDUCT[5]

As Justice S.H. Kapadia famously stated, “ethics should be the base” not just for politicians, students, and teachers, but also for judges. To ensure proper use of legal accountability, judges must adhere to a code of behaviour known as the ethics for judges.

Here are the key points of the judges’ code of conduct:

1. Honest and reasonable verdicts: Judges must make fair and reasonable judicial decisions based on their understanding of the law and facts. If a verdict is unfair, dishonest, or biassed, it is deemed dishonest.

2. Deciding one’s action: The fundamental moral rule specifies that judges must not be the judge of their own actions. They must keep their distance and neutrality in legal affairs and avoid compromising in cases where they have a vested interest.

1. Regulating impartiality: Judges must regulate impartially, with the motto of “let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”

4. Equal treatment: Judges must treat all litigants equally in accordance with the rules of law and equality, with no exceptions. They should not be troubled by the parties’ identities and should treat them equally, granting them similar rights during the prosecution.
5. Maintaining distance: To avoid exploitation of their familiarity, judges must keep themselves distinct from the parties on trial and their counsel over the course of the judicial processes.
6. Avoiding excessive social activity: To retain their neutrality and avoid any sense of unfairness, judges avoid extensive social participation. They are highly choosy in their attendance at social occasions and decline private invites from business, commercial organisations, political parties, clubs, religious institutions, community or parochial pursuits.
7. Avoiding media advertisements: Judges seek to avoid media coverage of ongoing cases or those that may be filed before them in the future. They shun media sites that manipulate facts, engage in heinous practises, and present non-problems as real concerns.

In conclusion, following a code of conduct is essential for judges to ensure legitimate usage of legal accountability. By following these ethical standards, judges can uphold justice and maintain the trust of the public in the judiciary system. Lord Hailsham said “the best judges are those who do not find their names in the Daily Mail and still, who abhor it[6]” Lord Widgery, Lord Chief Justice of England since 1971 to 1980, said that “the best judge is the man who do not indulge in court publicity and should work in such a way that they don’t catch the eyes of the newsmen[7]”

NEED FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

In a democracy, the court is supposed to be a symbol of fairness, justice, and accountability. However, when it comes to calling into question the quality of judgements or investigating the judiciary, the issue gets more problematic. The judiciary has a higher position than all other citizens, which raises basic concerns regarding the need for judicial responsibility.

Why should the judiciary be exempt from examination or deemed above the moral rules that govern the rest of society? Why can’t judges be held accountable for their conduct, just like other professionals and individuals? In truth, judicial corruption is a worldwide issue, affecting countries such as the United States and Canada. According to Transparency International, 2% of North Americans who had interaction with the judiciary acknowledged to paying a bribe to a judge, with extrapolated national statistics of 220 million bribes every year based on their sample results.[8]

It’s no different in India, where citizens are rapidly losing faith in the courts. Shocking disclosures from a former Law Minister claiming eight out of sixteen past Chief Justices of India were corrupt, and a former Supreme Court judge accusing three former CJIs of making illegal agreements to allow a corrupt High Court judge to continue in office, only add gasoline to the fire.

It is past time for the court to recognize that they are part of human society and, as such, are held to the same standards as every other citizen. The media, which is frequently regarded as a symbol of democracy, must likewise be free to criticize the judiciary without fear of retaliation. The importance of judicial accountability is critical to the survival of democracy and the rule of law.

FACTORS FOR THE DEMAND OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY[9]

There are various reasons that contribute to the desire for judicial accountability and openness, with the assistance of the higher judiciary’s societal accountability. One of the key factors is the modern welfare state’s shifting needs. Citizens have grown more aware of their fundamental rights as literacy rates have increased, and they are turning to the judiciary for redress of their problems. However, the court procedure takes a long time to resolve conflicts, leading to a growing need for judicial accountability.

Another element contributing to the desire for judicial accountability is the lack of recourse for misbehaviour by superior court judges. Judges may make mistakes or misbehave during court hearings, and these behaviours can be hurtful to others if not properly disciplined. If it is not essential for the scenario, the collegians of senior judges or jurors should have the entire power to seek action against such misbehaving activity. Superior court judges, on the other hand, frequently favour their own men in such accusations or cases, resulting in a lack of responsibility.

Demand for accountability Another factor for the increased desire for judicial transparency is accountability. According to studies, every entity responsible for public welfare responsibilities provides fairness. The judiciary, as the judicial branch of government, is also accountable to the people it serves.

The legitimacy of the judicial process is also an important aspect in the call for judicial accountability. Superior judges, who are regarded lawmakers, must be held responsible for their judgements and actions in order to give credibility to the law-making function.

The standard of judges is another another important aspect contributing to the demand for judicial accountability. Political pressure has tainted the standard of judges, with numerous individuals nominated to the position who have questionable integrity as well as political affiliation. Nowadays, obtaining a judgeship or a promotion from one high court to another is not difficult because political heavyweights promote such unethical actions.

The demand for efficiency is also an important consideration in the rising need for judicial accountability. People choose quality above number, and while enforcing the law, the Supreme Court began with seven or 10 judges, which has since grown to 31. However, the quality of the decisions has not kept up with the number of judges. Because of this inefficiency, many have turned to unlawful means to settle their conflicts, emphasising the necessity for the judiciary to work towards efficiency, speedy justice, and complete disclosure and openness. Failure to address public issues can result in profound moral crises.

Another element contributing to the desire for judicial accountability is the absence of a procedure for reviewing Supreme Court rulings. There is no other supreme body or higher council above that can assess the Supreme Court’s judgement, and only the highest court’s judiciary may probe its own decision. This absence of supervision might result in a situation in which half of the public trust in the judiciary profits from bad judgements for years.[10].

TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITIES[11]

1. Legal Accountability:

India is a democratic country in which the people are the most powerful pillar. The Indian Constitution has detailed measures to promote the independence of the judiciary. However, the experience of the Constitution has been tainted by discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, and socialism. The Indian legal system has been chastised for issuing incorrect rulings and failing to resolve cases consistently, resulting in inefficiencies in the quality of judgement. In reaction to these complaints, judicial activism evolved, identifying faults in the legal system and striving to improve and reinforce public expectations of judicial responsibility. Deliberations in parliament resulted in the introduction of rigorous norms and limitations on the authority of judges. However, the lack of transparency in the appointment of judges remains a major concern, as senior judges make appointments without the involvement of the executive.

1. Political Accountability:

In ancient India, rulers were regarded as the font of justice, with the assistance of the “Amatya,” who were Dharma Shastra specialists. Today, judicial rulings in India have political ramifications and are frequently influenced by political forces. The Supreme Court, in particular, is a politically significant institution that is involved in national issues and plays a major role in politics. Unlike in most nations, there is no separate legal province from the political province led by the Executive and Parliament. The authority of judicial review positions the court at the heart of the political process, and its rulings may either stigmatise or legitimise the behaviour and activities of political elites. The decisions of the higher judiciary not only affect the national political situation but also the government’s international stature. Therefore, the accountability of the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary, is of utmost importance.

1. Institutional Accountability

If there is sufficient proof, the Judges Inquiry Bill of 2006 authorises complaints against Supreme Court judges to be lodged with the council. However, no complaint may be submitted against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) until 100 Lok Sabha members and 50 Rajya Sabha members endorse the accusations against the CJI. Former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma suggested that the CJI be included in the judicial council and that he or she should not be excluded from the complaint procedure if there is any fraudulent conduct or dissimilarity between the CJI and other judges. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill of 2010 was passed by the Lok Sabha and is now awaiting Rajya Sabha approval. There was a debate among judges about a provision that would debar judges from revealing oral comments in courts, but the government of India refused to remove this provision.

1. Professional Accountability

Judges play an important role in resolving conflicts amongst ordinary people and must be of high quality in order to establish a fair and powerful judiciary. The judicial nomination process, judicial independence, ethics, and scholarship are all key factors in selecting judges who can do their duties without fear or favour. The enforcement of judicial ethics is also a topic of public debate, and the operation of courts, as well as the responsibilities of attorneys, litigants, and witnesses, need constant inspection in order to improve the system. The growth of laws, particularly those pertaining to women, is a major issue for society. However, the issue of judicial independence and transparency in judicial appointments has been a subject of public debate and concern, with several amendments to the Constitution aimed at ensuring a committed judiciary. There have been attempts to undermine the independence and impartiality of judges, such as the transfer of sixteen judges of the High Court.

1. Social Accountability

The existing industrial law framework is the outcome of a lengthy fight by the working class for social justice and workplace fairness. To guarantee that the benefits of industrial activity are shared equally, the interests of all stakeholders, including employers, employees, and society at large, must be considered while interpreting these regulations. In the industrial sector, social responsibility is critical, and corporations must be held accountable for their social and environmental repercussions. Compliance with legal obligations is insufficient; businesses must go above and above to have a good influence on the community and the environment. Industrial law, through encouraging social accountability, has the potential to benefit all members of society.

SUGGESTIONS[12]

The judicial system is an integral part of any democratic society. It serves as the backbone of the legal system, ensuring that justice is served, and the rule of law is upheld. However, the judicial system has often been criticized for being slow and cumbersome, causing undue delays in the delivery of justice. This has led to a situation where cases drag on for years, causing immense hardship to the accused, the victim, and the State. Therefore, it is imperative that the judicial system undergoes major changes to streamline the process, reduce case times, and ensure quick justice to people[13].

1. One of the judiciary’s principal responsibilities should be to retain its independence and isolation from politics. The public has high expectations of courts in terms of justice, and the judiciary should take all necessary efforts to earn the people’s trust. It should demonstrate that justice is being served to society in a timely and reasonable manner. In the sake of judicial independence in the democratic framework, the judiciary should guarantee that it does not undermine the accountability system.
2. Another critical issue that must be addressed is the High Courts’ administrative supervision over lower courts. This necessitates significant reforms in order for the people to get fair and timely justice. Delays in expediting criminal proceedings violate the right to life and personal liberty. It is common knowledge that a criminal case can stretch on for several years before reaching a final verdict, forcing the accused to shift from “anguish” to “sympathy.” Sometimes witnesses are won over or develop compassion for the accused, and the prosecution is unable to prove the accused’s guilt. Sometimes, the witnesses fail to recollect the real facts as their memory fades away with the passage of time. Unreasonable delay in disposal of cases results in great hardship not only to the accused but even to the victim and the State.
3. Judges must issue decisions within a fair time frame, which should be set by appropriate legislation passed by parliament. If a judgement is reserved in any matter, it must be given within the time frame specified. A huge number of lawsuits are brought on identical grounds. In such instances, a single judgement might settle the matter. Such cases should be grouped together for priority disposal. It will help to lessen the arrears.
4. Furthermore, previous cases might be segregated and prioritised for hearing after brief adjournments, especially in the case of older individuals. This will assist to guarantee that individuals who have been waiting for justice for a long time receive it. These measures have the potential to drastically reduce the backlog of cases and guarantee that individuals receive justice as soon as possible.
5. The judicial system is a necessary component of a democratic society. It is critical that it undergoes significant modifications in order to simplify the process, minimise case times, and provide individuals with prompt justice. The court must preserve its independence and accountability while ensuring that justice is delivered to society in a timely and equitable way.
6. The practise of choosing judges who have close familial or professional links to a specific high court must be discontinued since it jeopardises their impartiality in dispensing justice. This sometimes leads to complaints against “Uncle Judges,” who are usually selected based on their previous work as district judges or practising attorneys in the same state. When a practising lawyer becomes a judge in the same high court where they previously worked, they may keep in touch with their former colleagues, which might influence their behaviour and attitude as a judge. Furthermore, the offspring or close relatives of district judges who are raised to the highest court may practise in the same court.
7. Raising judges’ salaries, bonuses, and other advantages will assist eliminate corruption in the judiciary.
8. Improving internal complaint processes within the judiciary can provide stronger accountability measures and aid in the investigation of complaints against judges.
9. Given the prevalence of corruption in the judiciary, the enforcement powers and procedures of courts need to be strengthened in today’s environment.
10. To safeguard the reputation of honest judges, the legislature should implement adequate and efficient means to penalise persons who lodge false and unsubstantiated complaints against them.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by Yagya Agarwal, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

 

 

 

 

[1] Keshanandan Bharti V. State of Kerala A.I.R 1973 S.C 1461

[2] Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (1978)1S.C.C 248

[3] P.P. Rao, “Accountability of Legislature, Executive and Judiciary”, edited by Dr. D.S. Prakasa Rao, Festschrift Constitutional Jurisprudence and Environmental Justice: Essays in the Honour of Prof. A. Lakshmi Nath, Andhra Law House, 2002, p. 33

[4] State of Bihar V. Bal Mukund Shah, AIR 2000 SC 1296.

[5] “- Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees and Judges | RTI Foundation of India.” – Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees and Judges | RTI Foundation of India, www.rtifoundationofindia.com/code-conduct-judicial-employees-and-judges#.ZCHZBXZBy3A

[6] Quintin McGarel Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, won the title “2nd Viscount Hailsham” was a British politician.

[7] John Passmore Widgery, Baron Widgery, was an English judge who served as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

[8] Transparency International Organization is a company which researches on corruption globally. They work with government, businesses, and citizens to end misuse of power, bribery and secret deals.

[9] “Need for Stronger Judicial Accountability – iPleaders.” iPleaders, 22 Feb. 2021, https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-stronger-judicial-accountability/

[10] Bhattamishra.S.D, “Trasparency of Judiciary in India” Delhi Law Journal, Central Agency, p57.

[11] Devidas, T., and Hem Lall Bhandari. “JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 48, no. 1, 2006, pp. 94–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43952019  Accessed 27 Mar. 2023.

[12] Bhushan, Prashant. “Securing Judicial Accountability: Towards an Independent Commission.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 42, no. 43, 2007, pp. 14–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40276590  Accessed 27 Mar. 2023.

[13] “A Manifesto for Judicial Accountability in India.” The Wire, https://thewire.in/law/cji-ranjan-gogoi-supreme-court-judiciary