|
The Allahabad High Court is embroiled in controversy following remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav targeting the Muslim community. These comments, delivered during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, have ignited widespread outrage, leading to a formal motion in Parliament calling for his removal. Fifty-five MPs submitted a memorandum to the Rajya Sabha, demanding accountability for what they deem hate speech. The process, outlined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, requires a significant number of parliamentary signatures and a subsequent inquiry to even begin the removal process. The current situation highlights a critical juncture in India's judicial system, forcing a closer look at the mechanisms for holding judges accountable for their actions.
Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, dictates the procedural requirements for initiating a removal process. The motion, requiring 50 Rajya Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha members' signatures, must clearly articulate allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity. Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar is yet to decide on admitting the motion and establishing an inquiry committee. This delay is particularly noteworthy in light of the previous rejection of a similar motion against former Chief Justice Dipak Misra, a decision criticized for its narrow interpretation of “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The Misra case involved allegations of manipulating case assignments, underscoring the complexities and challenges inherent in holding high-ranking judges accountable.
The process to remove a judge is demonstrably arduous. Even if an inquiry committee finds evidence supporting the allegations, a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament is required for removal. This rigorous standard has never resulted in a successful removal, creating a perception of impunity for judges facing accusations of misconduct. To address this shortcoming, the Supreme Court has initiated an in-house inquiry into Justice Yadav's conduct. He appeared before the Supreme Court Collegium to explain the context of his remarks, claiming the media misrepresented his statements as merely defending the uniform civil code. The Collegium, however, reportedly cautioned him against casual comments unbefitting the dignity of his office. This intervention showcases the Collegium's delicate balancing act between safeguarding judicial independence and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court Collegium's role in this matter is multifaceted and raises questions about its authority. While created to recommend judicial appointments, its involvement in investigating Yadav's conduct appears to extend beyond its traditional remit. This extra-constitutional role is driven by a desire to maintain judicial integrity and address public concerns. However, the Collegium treads cautiously to adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring Justice Yadav has a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. Their decision to hear his explanation demonstrates a commitment to due process. The Collegium's potential actions – accepting his explanation, recommending further steps, or suggesting resignation – will significantly impact the outcome and reveal the court’s approach to maintaining its credibility.
The existing in-house inquiry mechanism of the Supreme Court lacks transparency. Previous instances have seen the results of in-house investigations kept confidential, even when exonerating judges facing serious allegations. This opaqueness fuels mistrust and reinforces the need for a more open and accountable process. Justice Yadav's case highlights the existing vacuum in the constitutional and legal framework for effectively addressing judicial misconduct. The current mechanisms, notably the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, have proven largely ineffective, necessitating urgent reform. This inadequacy is particularly concerning given the apparent impunity some judges seem to enjoy.
A potential solution lies in the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (JSAB) of 2010. This bill, passed by the Lok Sabha but never introduced in the Rajya Sabha, aimed to replace the 1968 Act with a more robust system for handling complaints against judges. It proposed the creation of a National Judicial Oversight Committee (NJOC) with the power to investigate complaints, impose sanctions, and recommend removal to the President. The NJOC would have included a retired CJI, a sitting Supreme Court Judge, a High Court Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and an eminent person appointed by the President. While the bill proposed stringent penalties for frivolous complaints and mechanisms for confidentiality, concerns remained about the NJOC's composition and its potential susceptibility to external influences given the political landscape in India.
The JSAB also outlined the process for investigating complaints. A Complaints Scrutiny Panel, at the Supreme Court and High Court levels, would conduct initial investigations. If deemed necessary, an Investigation Committee would be established by the NJOC. The NJOC would then make recommendations, which could involve warnings, advisories, or a request for resignation. The bill effectively integrated parliamentary power to remove judges with the NJOC's recommendation to the President. Removal would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. If Parliament failed to remove the judge, the NJOC's findings would still shape public opinion. The JSAB, while not perfect, provided a far more comprehensive structure for ensuring judicial accountability than the existing, deficient mechanisms. The case of Justice Yadav's controversial remarks underscores the urgent need for similar legislative actions to plug the existing gaps in the system and ensure appropriate consequences for judicial misconduct.