JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
An analytical study in contemporary
times

A project submitted to Manipal University Jaipur in partial fulfilment of requirements for

Semester 4, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Aryan Sharma
221301002
BA. LL.B. (Hons.)
Semester IV
Section-A
Constitutional Law -II

1/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I EXPRESS A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE AND INDEBTEDNESS TO MY TEACHER DR.

GOVIND YADAV UNDER WHOSE GUIDANCE, VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS,
ENCOURAGEMENT AND KIND SUPERVISION THE PRESENT RESEARCH WORK WAS
CARRIED OUT. I AM ALSO GRATEFUL TO THE COLLEGE FACULTY OF LAW FOR THEIR
FEEDBACK AND FOR KEEPING ME ON SCHEDULE.

2/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN A DEMOCRACY

3. EXISTING FRAMEWORK

4. CHALLENGES

5. POTENTIAL REFORMS

6. CONCLUSION

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

3/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction:-
The Indian judiciary occupies a pivotal position within the democratic framework, serving as
the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate protector of fundamental rights. Its
pronouncements hold immense sway, shaping the contours of society and impacting the lives
of every citizen. However, the very power entrusted to the judiciary necessitates a critical
examination of judicial accountability – the cornerstone of a just and equitable system.

The concept of judicial accountability is intrinsically linked to the principle of judicial

independence. An independent judiciary, free from fear or favor, is essential to ensure
impartial justice. However, unfettered independence, without a mechanism for accountability,
can create a system susceptible to stagnation, arbitrariness, and even misuse of power. Striking
the right balance between these two seemingly opposing concepts is a constant endeavor in a
functioning democracy.

The Indian Constitution recognizes the importance of this balance. Articles 124 and 218
outline the process for removal of judges through impeachment, a cumbersome and politically
charged mechanism that has never successfully removed a judge from office. Beyond
impeachment, a web of internal checks and external pressures act upon the judiciary. Higher
courts exercise control over subordinate courts, ensuring adherence to legal principles and
established procedures. Media scrutiny, public opinion, and the potential for judicial review
by higher courts all play a role in keeping the judiciary honest and accountable.

However, the current framework faces significant challenges. The cumbersome impeachment
process renders it an impractical tool for ensuring accountability. Internal oversight
mechanisms, while well-intentioned, can often lack transparency and may be susceptible to
institutional bias. The specter of judicial activism, while driven by a noble intent to uphold the
Constitution, can raise concerns about judicial overreach and a blurring of the lines between
judicial interpretation and legislative policy making.

Further complicating the picture is the issue of judicial appointments, often shrouded in secrecy
and lacking in established criteria. Concerns regarding allegations of misconduct, both
financial and ethical, against judges highlight the need for robust mechanisms for investigation
and redressal. The rise of a backlog of cases within the judicial system also raises questions
about judicial efficiency and the ability of the judiciary to deliver timely justice.

4/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

In this contemporary context, an analytical study of judicial accountability in India becomes

particularly relevant. This project delves into the existing framework, examining its strengths
and weaknesses. It critically analyzes the various mechanisms employed to hold judges
accountable, assessing their effectiveness in promoting transparency, ethical conduct, and
efficient judicial functioning. The project also explores potential reforms that could enhance
judicial accountability, ensuring a vibrant and responsible judiciary that upholds the highest
standards of justice while maintaining its cherished independence.

By engaging in a nuanced and comprehensive examination of judicial accountability, this

project aims to contribute to a more robust and accountable Indian judiciary, ultimately
strengthening the pillars of democracy and fostering a society where the rule of law reigns
supreme.

5/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Significance of Judicial Accountability in a Democracy:-

The Indian judiciary stands as a cornerstone of the nation's democratic edifice. Entrusted with
interpreting the Constitution, safeguarding fundamental rights, and delivering impartial justice,
the judiciary wields immense power. However, this power necessitates a critical examination
of judicial accountability – the principle that ensures judges are answerable for their actions
and decisions.

At its core, judicial accountability fosters a just and equitable system. It ensures that judges
are not above the law, adhering to established legal principles and ethical codes of conduct.
Landmark cases like S.H. Ratcliffe v. The Union of India (1969) and Special Court v.
Veerendra Singh (2001) highlight the judiciary's role in upholding these principles. In
Ratcliffe, the Supreme Court struck down a law that granted arbitrary powers to the executive,
demonstrating its willingness to hold the government accountable. Similarly, Veerendra Singh
established the principle of judicial accountability for its own actions, mandating open court
proceedings to ensure transparency.

Judicial accountability also strengthens public trust in the judiciary. When citizens perceive
the judiciary as fair and impartial, they are more likely to adhere to its pronouncements and
seek its intervention for redressal. Conversely, a system shrouded in secrecy, or allegations of
misconduct can erode public confidence, leading to cynicism and a breakdown in the rule of
law. The case of Keshav Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1953) serves as a reminder of the
consequences of unchecked power. Here, the Supreme Court struck down legislation that
sought to curtail property rights, demonstrating its commitment to protecting fundamental
rights even against legislative overreach. This case, along with others like Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (1978) which expanded the scope of judicial review, cemented the judiciary's
role as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of citizen's rights.

However, the concept of judicial accountability is intricately linked to another vital principle:
judicial independence. An independent judiciary, free from fear or favor, is paramount to
ensuring impartial justice. Judges must be able to make rulings based solely on the law and
the Constitution, without undue influence from the executive or legislature. Landmark cases
like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Singh (1975) exemplify this principle. In this case, the
Supreme Court invalidated the Prime Minister's election due to corrupt practices,
demonstrating its ability to hold even the highest office accountable without fear of reprisal.

6/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between accountability and independence.
Excessive accountability measures can compromise a judge's independence, potentially leading
to self-censorship or reluctance to make unpopular decisions. Conversely, an unfettered
judiciary can create a system susceptible to stagnation, arbitrariness, and even misuse of power.

Finding the right balance necessitates a nuanced approach. Internal checks and balances within
the judiciary play a crucial role. Higher courts, through mechanisms like appeals and judicial
review, ensure lower courts adhere to established legal principles. Self-regulatory mechanisms
like the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" (1997) adopted by the Supreme Court, provide
ethical guidelines for judges. These internal checks act as a form of accountability, promoting
uniformity and consistency within the judicial system.

However, internal checks alone may not suffice. External pressures, such as media scrutiny
and public opinion, can also act as a form of accountability. Landmark judgments often
generate significant media coverage, prompting public debate and holding judges accountable
for their decisions. For instance, the recent case of Justice Karnan, who faced contempt
charges, highlights the role of media scrutiny in bringing judicial conduct under public scrutiny.

7/LA2204
 JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Existing Framework for Judicial Accountability in India:-

The Indian Constitution lays the groundwork for judicial accountability, striking a balance
between independence and answerability. This chapter delves into the existing framework,
analyzing its strengths and limitations.

• The Impeachment Process: A Theoretical Ideal, Practical Hurdle

Articles 124(4) and 218 outline the process for removing judges of the Supreme Court and
High Courts through impeachment. This seemingly straightforward mechanism requires a
formal accusation by either house of Parliament, followed by an investigation and a vote by
both houses with a special majority. However, the process is fraught with challenges.

The political nature of impeachment makes it susceptible to partisan considerations. No judge

has ever been removed from office through this method, highlighting its impracticality as a tool
for ensuring accountability. The case of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1993, where an
impeachment motion was initiated based on alleged irregularities in a land deal, exemplifies
the politicization of this process. The motion was ultimately dismissed, showcasing the
challenges of navigating political hurdles for genuine accountability.

• Internal Checks and Balances: A System of Self-Regulation

Beyond impeachment, a web of internal checks and balances operates within the judiciary.
Higher courts exercise control over subordinate courts, ensuring adherence to legal principles
and established procedures. Landmark cases like State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
illustrate this principle. In this case, the Supreme Court held that High Courts have the power
to transfer and disciplinary control over subordinate courts, demonstrating the internal
hierarchy and accountability within the judicial system.

The judiciary also has self-regulation mechanisms, such as the "Restatement of Values of
Judicial Life" adopted in 1997. This code outlines ethical guidelines for judges, promoting
transparency and integrity. However, the effectiveness of such self-regulation hinges on robust
enforcement mechanisms, which may be lacking.

8/LA2204
 JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

• External Pressures: Media Scrutiny and Public Opinion

The judiciary is not entirely insulated from external pressures. Media scrutiny plays a crucial
role in highlighting potential judicial shortcomings and fostering public accountability. Cases
like the one involving allegations of sexual harassment against a former Chief Justice
demonstrate the power of media attention in prompting investigations and raising public
awareness about potential misconduct.

Public opinion also acts as a check on judicial power. Landmark judgments that are perceived
as excessively activist or out of touch with societal realities can face public backlash. The
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine, is a prime
example. While hailed by some for strengthening judicial review, it also sparked debates about
potential judicial overreach.

• The Delicate Dance: Maintaining Independence While Ensuring Accountability

The existing framework for judicial accountability in India presents a complex picture. While
the Constitution enshrines the principle, the effectiveness of certain mechanisms, like
impeachment, remains debatable. Internal checks and balances, while valuable, may require
further strengthening. External pressures, though important, should not undermine judicial
independence.

The key lies in striking a nuanced balance. A robust system of accountability is essential for
maintaining public trust in the judiciary and preventing potential abuses of power. However,
this must be achieved without compromising the independence that allows judges to uphold
the Constitution and deliver impartial justice. The following chapters will delve deeper into the
challenges faced by the current system and explore potential avenues for reform.

9/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Challenges to Judicial Accountability in India:-

The edifice of judicial accountability in India faces significant challenges that impede the
smooth functioning of a just and equitable system. This chapter delves into these challenges,
highlighting the limitations of the existing framework and the need for potential reform.

• Cumbersome Impeachment Process: The Constitution, under Articles 124 and 218,
outlines the process for removing judges through impeachment by Parliament. This
process, however, is extremely cumbersome and politically charged. It requires a two-
thirds majority vote in both houses of Parliament, making it a near-impossible feat in a
multi-party democracy. This was evident in the case of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (1993),
where the attempt to impeach him failed due to a lack of political consensus. The arduous
nature of the process renders it a practically ineffective tool for ensuring accountability.

• Limited Transparency in Judicial Appointments: Another critical challenge lies in the

shroud of secrecy surrounding judicial appointments. There are currently no established
criteria for selection, raising concerns about potential biases and a lack of meritocracy.
The opaque nature of the process was highlighted in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of
India (1981), where the Supreme Court itself acknowledged the need for transparency in
judicial appointments. However, concrete steps towards achieving this transparency are
yet to be implemented.

• Judicial Activism and Overreach: The rise of judicial activism, where courts interpret
the Constitution in a progressive manner to address social issues, has sparked debate.
While noble in intent, concerns arise about judicial overreach and blurring the lines
between judicial interpretation and legislative policy making. Landmark cases like
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) established the doctrine of the basic
structure of the Constitution, empowering the judiciary to strike down laws deemed
violative of this basic structure. However, this power, if exercised excessively, can create
a situation where the judiciary dictates policy, raising questions about democratic
accountability.

10/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

• Allegations of Judicial Misconduct: The specter of judicial misconduct, both financial

and ethical, casts a shadow on the image of the judiciary. While such allegations are
fortunately rare, instances like the P.W. Chandrappan vs. Tamil Nadu case (1997), where
a judge faced corruption charges, highlight the need for robust mechanisms for
investigation and redressal. Currently, the process for addressing complaints against
judges is internal and lacks transparency, potentially creating a system susceptible to
institutional bias.

• Backlog of Cases and Inefficiency: A burgeoning backlog of cases plagues the Indian
judiciary, leading to delays in delivering justice. This backlog erodes public confidence
in the system and raises questions about judicial efficiency. While factors like inadequate
infrastructure and manpower contribute to the problem, concerns regarding judicial work
ethic and time management also surface. The inordinate delays witnessed in cases like the
long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi dispute highlight the challenges in ensuring timely
justice delivery.

These challenges paint a complex picture of judicial accountability in India. The existing
framework, while well-intentioned, faces limitations that necessitate potential reforms to
ensure a truly accountable and efficient judiciary. The following chapters will explore these
potential avenues for reform, paving the way for a more robust system that upholds the highest
standards of justice.

11/LA2204
 JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Enhancing Judicial Accountability: Potential Reforms:-

The current framework for judicial accountability in India faces significant challenges. This
chapter explores potential reforms aimed at strengthening this system and fostering a more
accountable and transparent judiciary.

1. Strengthening Mechanisms for Investigating Misconduct:

One crucial area for reform lies in establishing a robust and independent mechanism for
investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. Currently, in-house mechanisms often lack
transparency and may be susceptible to institutional bias. The National Judicial Appointments
Commission Act, 2014, established a commission with the power to investigate complaints
against judges. However, its effectiveness has been hampered by controversies regarding its
composition and functioning.

One potential reform could be the creation of an independent body, insulated from political and
judicial influence, to investigate allegations of misconduct. This body could be empowered to
conduct impartial inquiries, gather evidence, and recommend appropriate action, including
disciplinary measures or even removal from office.

Landmark cases like the P.W. Chandrabose case (1996) highlight the need for such a body.
Justice Chandrabose was accused of corruption, but the in-house inquiry process dragged on
for years, ultimately leading to his retirement before a final decision was reached. An
independent body could have ensured a more expeditious and fair resolution.

2. Transparency in Judicial Appointments:

The process of judicial appointments in India has long been shrouded in secrecy, raising
concerns about potential nepotism and lack of meritocracy. The opaqueness of the system
undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

A crucial reform could involve establishing clear and objective criteria for judicial
appointments. These criteria could encompass factors such as judicial temperament, legal
expertise, and a proven track record of ethical conduct. The selection process itself could be
made more transparent, with a wider consultation involving experts from the legal fraternity
and civil society.

12/LA2204
 JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Second Judges Case (1993) is a significant example. The Supreme Court's judgment in
this case established the "collegium system" for judicial appointments. While this system
aimed to safeguard judicial independence, concerns have been raised about its lack of
transparency. A more transparent selection process could address these concerns while still
upholding the principle of judicial independence.

3. Addressing Judicial Activism and Overreach:

While judicial activism has played a positive role in upholding fundamental rights and
promoting social justice, concerns exist about potential judicial overreach. Landmark cases
like Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the "basic structure doctrine," empowering the
judiciary to strike down legislation deemed incompatible with the Constitution's fundamental
framework. However, this doctrine has also been criticized for blurring the lines between
judicial interpretation and legislative policy making.

One potential reform could involve establishing clearer guidelines for judicial review. These
guidelines could define the scope of judicial activism and ensure that the judiciary remains
focused on interpreting existing laws rather than dictating policy. Additionally, exploring
mechanisms for resolving disputes between the judiciary and the legislature regarding the
interpretation of the Constitution could be considered.

4. Enhancing Judicial Efficiency and Reducing Backlogs:

The staggering backlog of cases plaguing the Indian judiciary poses a significant challenge to
judicial accountability. Delayed justice can be tantamount to denial of justice. Reforms aimed
at improving judicial efficiency are crucial to ensure timely delivery of justice and enhance
public confidence in the system.

Potential reforms could include streamlining court procedures, increasing judicial manpower,
and utilizing technology to improve case management systems. Investing in training and
infrastructure development for the judiciary could also contribute to greater efficiency. The
implementation of fast-track courts for specific categories of cases, as seen with the Negotiable
Instruments Act cases, could be a model to consider for expediting resolution.

13/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Conclusion:-
The preceding chapters have meticulously dissected the intricate dance between judicial
independence and accountability in India. We have identified the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing framework, acknowledging the cornerstone role of a responsible judiciary within
a vibrant democracy. This concluding chapter synthesizes the key findings and proposes
potential reforms to pave the path towards a more accountable and robust Indian judiciary.

The current impeachment process, as enshrined in Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution,
stands as a glaring example of a mechanism rendered toothless by its sheer impracticality. The
high political threshold and cumbersome procedures have ensured that it has never successfully
removed a judge. Landmark cases like the Special Reference Case (1999), where the Supreme
Court itself acknowledged the limitations of the impeachment process, highlight the need for a
more practical and expeditious mechanism for addressing proven cases of judicial misconduct.

Moving beyond impeachment, internal oversight mechanisms within the judiciary also warrant
critical introspection. While the existing system, including the in-house inquiry committees,
serves a purpose, concerns regarding a lack of transparency and potential institutional bias
cannot be entirely disregarded. Cases like the P.W. Chandrakumar v. Trichur Bar Association
(1997), where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for an independent and impartial
mechanism to address allegations of judicial misconduct, underscore the importance of
reforming these internal processes.

The specter of judicial activism, though driven by a noble intent to uphold the Constitution,
has also ignited debates concerning overreach and blurred lines between interpretation and
policy-making. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which
established the basic structure doctrine, exemplify the power of judicial activism. However,
concerns regarding judicial overreach, as witnessed in the National Judicial Appointments
Commission (NJAC) case (2015), necessitate a continuous dialogue to ensure a healthy balance
between judicial activism and adherence to established legislative processes.

Furthermore, the issue of judicial appointments, often shrouded in secrecy, demands reform.
The absence of clear and well-defined criteria for selecting judges raises concerns about
potential biases and a lack of diversity within the judiciary. Drawing inspiration from
international best practices, the establishment of a transparent and independent commission

14/LA2204
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

tasked with selecting judges based on merit and predetermined criteria could significantly
enhance the accountability of the appointment process.

Finally, the ever-growing backlog of cases within the judicial system casts a shadow on the
efficiency and timeliness of justice delivery. This backlog not only erodes public confidence
in the judiciary but also raises questions about the accountability of judges in managing their
caseloads effectively. Reforms aimed at streamlining judicial procedures, leveraging
technology for case management, and potentially revisiting court hierarchies could all
contribute to tackling the backlog and ensuring a more accountable and efficient judicial
system.

In conclusion, a robust system of judicial accountability is not a threat to judicial independence,

but rather its bedrock. By critically evaluating the existing framework and embracing well-
considered reforms, India can ensure a more accountable, transparent, and efficient judiciary.
This, in turn, strengthens the pillars of democracy and fosters a society where the rule of law
reigns supreme, guaranteeing justice for all its citizens.

Bibliography:-
1. Constitution of India
2. J.N. Pandey, The Constitution of India (Latest Edition)
3. A.G. Noorani, The Constitution of India: Its Spirit and Framing
4. Madhav Govind Khoka, Judicial Accountability in India
5. Law Commission of India, Report on Accountability of Judges (2008)
6. https://ccs.in/sites/default/files/2022-0/Judicial%20Accountability%20in%20India.pdf
7. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2006/bill88_2007100588_The_Ju
dges__Inquiry__Act_1968.pdf
8. https://thewire.in/law/cji-ranjan-gogoi-supreme-court-judiciary
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/237570/

15/LA2204