 |
|
The year 2024 presented the Supreme Court of India with a significant challenge: addressing a disturbing trend of High Court judges making biased and inappropriate remarks. The frequency and nature of these comments, ranging from communal and sexist observations to unwarranted assertions, necessitated the repeated formation of five-judge benches to mitigate the damage caused by these judicial pronouncements. This reactive approach highlights a systemic issue within the Indian judiciary, requiring a deeper examination of the mechanisms for accountability and disciplinary action against errant judges. While the Supreme Court actively intervened in several instances, the consistency and transparency of its approach have been questioned, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of its response to judicial misconduct.
One of the most prominent cases involved Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. His remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, held on the High Court premises, drew widespread criticism. Justice Yadav's statements, which appeared to favor the majority community and disparage minority groups, ignited a public outcry. The gravity of the situation led to a motion for his removal, initiated by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs, currently pending before the relevant authorities. The Supreme Court's handling of this case, marked by a relatively opaque process and a lack of public pronouncements beyond brief statements, stands in stark contrast to its approach in other instances of judicial misconduct.
The contrasting treatment of Justice Yadav's case compared to that of Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court further underscores the inconsistencies in the Supreme Court's approach. In Justice Srishananda's case, the Supreme Court took a more transparent and proactive stance, openly addressing the allegations in court. The then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, rejected suggestions for an internal, less public process, opting instead for a suo motu investigation. This decision to utilize ‘sunlight’ as a corrective measure reflected a commitment to transparency and accountability. While the proceedings were eventually dropped following a contrite apology, the contrast with the handling of Justice Yadav's case raises questions about the factors influencing the Supreme Court's choice of approach and the potential for inconsistent application of judicial standards.
Beyond these two prominent cases, the Supreme Court also intervened in several other instances where High Court judges made controversial remarks. Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Rajbir Sehrawat’s comments challenging the Supreme Court's authority necessitated a Supreme Court intervention, urging judicial restraint. Similarly, the conflict between Calcutta High Court judges Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Justice Soumen Sen, marked by allegations of political bias, led the Supreme Court to transfer the case to itself, ultimately resulting in Justice Gangopadhyay’s resignation and subsequent entry into politics. These events collectively underscore the prevalence of judicial misconduct and the Supreme Court's crucial role in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the Indian judiciary.
The challenges faced by the Supreme Court in 2024 highlight the complex interplay between judicial independence, accountability, and public perception. The inconsistencies in the Court's response to judicial misconduct raise concerns about the need for standardized procedures and increased transparency in handling such matters. A consistent and transparent approach is crucial not only for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary but also for ensuring that all judges are held to the same high standards of conduct and ethics. The ongoing investigation into Justice Yadav's case will serve as a crucial test for the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding these principles and demonstrating its ability to address instances of judicial misconduct effectively and consistently.
The year 2024 serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle to balance the principles of judicial independence with the need for accountability and transparency within the Indian judicial system. The Supreme Court's actions, while demonstrating a willingness to intervene, also highlight the complexities and inconsistencies that need to be addressed to ensure the consistent upholding of ethical standards and public trust in the judiciary. Further reforms and the establishment of clear, consistent procedures are essential to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system and to maintain public confidence in its ability to deliver justice impartially.
Source: 2024: When Supreme Court was busy fighting bigotry in High Courts