|
The Allahabad High Court is embroiled in controversy following remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav targeting the Muslim community. These remarks, delivered during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, have prompted a strong reaction, with 55 Members of Parliament submitting a memorandum to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General demanding his removal. This action highlights a critical juncture in the ongoing debate surrounding judicial accountability and the mechanisms in place to address misconduct within the Indian judiciary. The MPs' move, based on Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, necessitates a formal motion signed by a sufficient number of parliamentarians to trigger an inquiry. However, the process outlined in the Act is notoriously cumbersome, requiring a significant level of support in both houses of Parliament and a two-thirds majority for removal, a threshold that has never been met in the history of the Act. This inherent difficulty in removing a judge, even for proven misconduct, underscores a significant flaw in the existing legal framework.
The Rajya Sabha Chairperson, Jagdeep Dhankhar, is currently reviewing the motion. His predecessor's rejection of a similar motion in 2018, based on a narrow interpretation of the required level of proof, sets a concerning precedent. The 2018 rejection demonstrates the high bar set for proving 'proved misbehaviour' or 'misconduct', as defined under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. This high bar, coupled with the complex and lengthy process outlined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, creates significant obstacles in holding judges accountable for their actions. The case highlights the urgent need for reform, as the current system clearly fails to provide adequate mechanisms for addressing judicial misconduct efficiently.
In parallel to the parliamentary process, the Supreme Court Collegium is actively involved, conducting its own inquiry. Justice Yadav appeared before the Collegium to explain his remarks, suggesting that they were misinterpreted by the media. The Collegium reportedly expressed its concern, indicating that even if the remarks were made within a specific context, they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the dignity expected of a judge's office. The Collegium's intervention, while seemingly extra-constitutional, reflects a pragmatic attempt to address the situation. This suggests an attempt to navigate the complexities of the existing legal framework, while simultaneously preserving the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity for Justice Yadav to defend himself. However, the opacity surrounding the Collegium's internal processes raises questions about transparency and accountability.
The Collegium's response highlights a wider issue: the lack of clear and effective mechanisms for ensuring judicial accountability in India. The current system is a complex interplay between parliamentary processes, Supreme Court Collegium interventions, and a notoriously ineffective 1968 Act. The lack of transparency, particularly regarding the Supreme Court's in-house inquiries, further compounds the problem. Past instances where in-house inquiries have exonerated judges facing serious allegations without publicly disclosing the findings underscore the opaqueness of the system. This lack of transparency undermines public confidence in the judiciary and hampers effective accountability.
The lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (JSAB) of 2010 offered a potential solution by establishing a National Judicial Oversight Committee (NJOC) with broader powers to investigate complaints, issue warnings, and even recommend removal to the President. While the Bill proposed stricter standards of conduct and provided for the penalisation of frivolous complaints, its composition and potential susceptibility to influence from a dominant executive branch raised concerns. Despite its flaws, the JSAB represented a more comprehensive approach to judicial accountability than the current system. Its failure to become law further accentuates the urgent need for legislative intervention to address the shortcomings in the existing framework.
The case of Justice Yadav underscores the critical need for reform in the area of judicial accountability. The existing mechanisms are inadequate, slow, and opaque, allowing judges to act with impunity. The lack of transparency and the difficulty in removing a judge, even for serious misconduct, undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The situation demands urgent legislative action to create a more robust, transparent, and effective system for addressing judicial misconduct, ensuring that judges are held accountable for their actions and that the integrity of the judiciary is upheld. While the Collegium's intervention provides a temporary solution, a more substantial overhaul of the legal framework is necessary to prevent similar controversies in the future. The complexities of the issue demand a careful consideration of various models and a balance between ensuring judicial independence and maintaining public accountability.