Font size:
Print
Judicial Accountability and the Need for Systemic Reform
Context:
Despite repeated assurances and legal frameworks, corruption continues to rise across Indian society — even penetrating the judiciary — making the lives of ordinary citizens increasingly difficult.
More on News
- Tackling corruption within the judicial system, however, remains a formidable challenge due to systemic flaws in the prosecution and removal of judges.
- This calls for the establishment of an impartial process overseen by Parliament to ensure transparency and accountability.
Case That Rekindled the Debate
- Recent Controversy: The recent controversy involving Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited a nationwide conversation on judicial accountability and reform.
- While the evidence — including reports of burnt currency notes allegedly found at his residence — has not proven his guilt, media narratives have prematurely passed judgment.
- This case has highlighted a significant flaw in India’s judicial system: the near-impossibility of holding judges accountable for misconduct.
- Vice-President’s Concern: Even Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar expressed his frustration, questioning the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Act (NJAC), which attempted to give Parliament a greater role in judicial appointments.
- While the NJAC itself lacked provisions for judge removal, Dhankar’s remarks reflect growing concerns about the unchecked power of the judiciary.
Constitutional Provisions and Current Challenges
- Provisions: India’s Constitution provides for the removal of judges through Articles 124(4) and 218, using the term “removal” rather than “impeachment”.
- Stringent Process: However, the process is deliberately stringent: a motion for removal must be signed by a significant number of parliamentarians, followed by an inquiry, and then passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.
- This high threshold often renders the process ineffective, even when credible allegations exist.
- Previous Attempts: India’s two prominent impeachment attempts — against Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen — did not result in formal removal, as both judges resigned before proceedings could conclude.
- The cumbersome and politicised process discourages accountability and undermines public faith in the judiciary.
Global Practices: Lessons in Accountability
Other democracies have implemented more effective systems for judicial oversight:
- South Africa: The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) oversees appointments and addresses complaints.
- Minor misconduct is handled by the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC), while serious cases are referred to the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT).
- Final decisions are reviewed by Parliament.
- United States: Federal judges can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.”
- The House of Representatives initiates the process with a simple majority, followed by a Senate trial requiring a two-thirds majority.
- As of March, 15 federal judges have been impeached, with eight removed.
- Germany: The Bundestag initiates removal proceedings with a two-thirds vote, and the Federal Constitutional Court must also agree with a two-thirds majority to dismiss or retire a judge.
- United Kingdom: Judges can be removed by the sovereign following an address by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
- Kenya & Nigeria: Both countries have established judicial commissions that initiate removal proceedings. Parliamentary or executive approval is required, ensuring a balance of power.
Case for a Judicial Service Commission
- There is a pressing need for India to establish an independent Judicial Service Commission.
- This body should be empowered to oversee both appointments and disciplinary proceedings, including removal, subject to Parliamentary approval.
- This would streamline the process, ensure impartiality, and preserve judicial integrity without compromising independence.
- Judicial independence must coexist with accountability. Without this balance, public trust in the judiciary will continue to erode.
- A compromised judiciary threatens the very foundation of the rule of law and paves the way for democratic instability.
