 |
|
The Indian judiciary, a cornerstone of the nation's democracy, finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with persistent concerns regarding accountability and transparency. The article, “Judicial Accountability In India: A System In Need Of Urgent Reform” underscores the systemic inadequacies that hinder the effective prosecution and removal of judges accused of misconduct. The core issue revolves around the eroded public trust in the judiciary, stemming from the lack of successful impeachments or convictions of judges implicated in corruption. The article meticulously dissects the existing mechanisms designed to ensure judicial accountability – the in-house procedure and the impeachment process – revealing their inherent limitations and the challenges they face. It highlights the rarity of criminal prosecutions against judges and emphasizes the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to restore the judiciary’s credibility and uphold the rule of law. The recent allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court serve as a stark reminder of the pressing need for reform. Although the allegations remain unproven, the case has reignited the debate surrounding judicial accountability. The fact that no Supreme Court or High Court judge in India has ever been impeached or convicted for corruption despite numerous allegations, is a severe indictment of the current system. The author contends that the existing mechanisms are insufficient, necessitating a thorough re-evaluation of the available options to hold judges accountable. The article points to two primary avenues for holding judges accountable for corruption in India: the in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and the impeachment process conducted by Parliament. However, both methods have proven ineffective in addressing the underlying problems of judicial misconduct. The in-house procedure, introduced by the Supreme Court in 1999, is meant to be the first line of defense against allegations of judicial misconduct. Under this system, complaints against high court judges are addressed through an informal inquiry by a three-member committee composed of two high court chief justices and one judge. This process is confidential, allowing the accused judge to respond to the allegations. If the allegations are deemed serious, the judge is advised to resign. If resignation is refused, judicial work is withdrawn, and the Chief Justice of India may recommend impeachment. Despite its intention, the in-house procedure has been criticized for its lack of transparency and overall effectiveness. The Supreme Court has ruled that inquiry reports under this mechanism are confidential, citing a 2003 judgment. This confidentiality means the public is unaware of the number of judges investigated and the specific actions taken against them. The Union Law Ministry informed Parliament that 1,631 complaints regarding judicial corruption were received between 2017 and 2021 and were forwarded to the Chief Justice of India or high court chief justices. However, the outcomes of these complaints remain secret, further eroding public confidence. The case of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court exemplifies the in-house procedure’s limitations. Yadav faced allegations of making communal remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event held at the high court in December 2023. Although the Supreme Court collegium initiated an in-house inquiry, the outcome is still unclear, and Yadav continues to serve as a judge. This lack of accountability undermines public trust in the judiciary and underscores the necessity for a more transparent and robust mechanism to address judicial misconduct. The second avenue for holding judges accountable is the impeachment process, outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. This process allows Parliament to remove a judge for “proven misbehavior or incapacity.” However, the impeachment process is fraught with political and procedural challenges. A removal motion requires the support of 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the allegations. If misconduct is proven, Parliament votes on the motion, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal. Despite its existence, the impeachment process has never resulted in the removal of a Supreme Court or high court judge, illustrating its practical ineffectiveness. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court became the first judge to face an impeachment motion for allegedly misusing public funds. Although a judicial committee found him guilty on 11 of 14 charges, the removal motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to a lack of political will. Similarly, in 2009, an impeachment motion against Karnataka High Court Chief Justice PD Dinakaran was passed in the Rajya Sabha, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote. In 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court also resigned before his impeachment motion could be taken up in the Lok Sabha. The consistent failure to impeach a single judge highlights the significant political and institutional barriers to holding judges accountable. While constitutionally sound, the impeachment process is often undermined by partisan politics and lawmakers' reluctance to take decisive action against members of the judiciary. The article highlights that criminal prosecution of judges for corruption is even rarer. The Supreme Court’s 1991 judgment in the K Veeraswami case established that judges are “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act but ruled that the CJI’s advice is necessary before registering a criminal case or commencing prosecution against a judge. This requirement has created a significant barrier to prosecuting judges for corruption. There have been only a few instances where judges have faced criminal prosecution. In 2003, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly colluding with officials to fix a case. In 2011, Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was charged after a bribe meant for her was mistakenly delivered to another judge. In 2017, Justice SN Shukla of the Allahabad High Court faced criminal charges for allegedly accepting a bribe to fix an order. However, all these cases remain pending, and none have resulted in convictions. This absence of convictions and successful impeachments underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms to address judicial corruption effectively. Legal experts assert that the current mechanisms are inadequate and call for a thorough rethinking of the options available to hold judges accountable.
To address the systemic issues, the article suggests several key reforms. These include enhanced transparency, mandatory asset declarations, and empowerment of investigative agencies. Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, emphasizes the need for greater transparency, such as mandatory asset declarations by judges. Currently, only about 13 percent of high court judges have voluntarily disclosed their assets. Increasing this percentage would provide a clearer picture of judges’ financial standings and help identify potential instances of corruption or illicit enrichment. Shubhankar Dam, a legal scholar, advocates for overturning Supreme Court judgments that shield judges from scrutiny, including the 1991 Veeraswami judgment and the 1995 ruling that broadened the constitutional prohibition on discussing judges’ conduct. These rulings have been used to restrict public discourse on judicial conduct, making it difficult to expose and address corruption within the judiciary. Dam also highlights the necessity of operational independence for investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to shield them from accusations of executive interference. He acknowledges that governments are unlikely to initiate such reforms, as they often benefit from the status quo. He states that it is beneficial for governments not to investigate corruption allegations within the judiciary because they can use them to control judges. This acknowledgment underscores the deep-seated political challenges in implementing judicial reforms. The lack of transparency and the vulnerability of investigative agencies to political influence create an environment where judicial corruption can persist unchecked. The article concludes that the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma serve as a stark reminder of the challenges India faces in addressing judicial corruption. The existing mechanisms – the in-house procedure and the impeachment process – have proven ineffective in holding judges accountable. The lack of transparency, political will, and operational independence for investigative agencies has created a system ill-equipped to tackle corruption within the judiciary. The author argues that to restore public trust in the judiciary, India must undertake sweeping reforms, including mandatory asset declarations, overturning judgments that shield judges from scrutiny, and empowering investigative agencies to act independently. Without such reforms, the judiciary risks losing its credibility, and the rule of law in India will remain compromised. The time for action is now, as the continued failure to address judicial corruption will erode public confidence in the entire legal system and undermine the foundations of Indian democracy.
The call for reforms highlights the necessity of addressing both structural and procedural issues within the judiciary. A more transparent and accountable judiciary is not only essential for maintaining public trust but also for ensuring that the legal system operates fairly and effectively. The current lack of transparency allows corruption to flourish, as the public is largely unaware of the complaints against judges and the actions taken in response. Mandatory asset declarations would provide a critical tool for monitoring judges’ financial activities and detecting potential corruption. Overturning Supreme Court judgments that shield judges from scrutiny would foster greater accountability by allowing for more open discussion and criticism of judicial conduct. This would help to create a culture of transparency and accountability within the judiciary, making it more difficult for corruption to thrive. Empowering investigative agencies like the CBI is also crucial for ensuring that allegations of corruption are thoroughly investigated without political interference. Operational independence would allow these agencies to pursue cases against judges without fear of reprisal, leading to more effective prosecution of judicial misconduct. In addition to these reforms, there is also a need to strengthen the impeachment process to make it more effective. The current process is cumbersome and politically charged, making it difficult to remove even judges who have been credibly accused of misconduct. Streamlining the impeachment process and reducing the political barriers to removal would help to ensure that judges are held accountable for their actions. The article effectively conveys the urgency and importance of judicial reform in India. The current system is failing to address corruption within the judiciary, and this failure is eroding public trust in the legal system. Comprehensive reforms are needed to create a more transparent, accountable, and effective judiciary. The reforms suggested in the article would represent a significant step in the right direction, helping to restore public confidence and uphold the rule of law in India. The need for these reforms is further underscored by the ongoing challenges facing the Indian judiciary, including a significant backlog of cases, a shortage of judges, and concerns about the quality of legal education. Addressing these challenges will require a concerted effort from the government, the judiciary, and civil society. By working together, these stakeholders can create a legal system that is both fair and efficient, ensuring that justice is accessible to all citizens of India. In conclusion, the article “Judicial Accountability In India: A System In Need Of Urgent Reform” provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges facing the Indian judiciary and the urgent need for systemic reforms. The existing mechanisms for holding judges accountable are inadequate, and the lack of transparency, political will, and operational independence for investigative agencies has created a system ill-equipped to tackle corruption within the judiciary. By implementing the reforms suggested in the article, India can create a more transparent, accountable, and effective judiciary, restoring public trust and upholding the rule of law. The time for action is now, as the continued failure to address judicial corruption will undermine the foundations of Indian democracy.
Source: Judicial Accountability In India: A System In Need Of Urgent Reform - News18