| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Highlight constitutional and procedural challenges involved in holding judges accountable. Conclusion: Way forward |
The process for holding judges accountable in India is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, of 1968, and constitutional provisions such as Articles 124(4) and 124(5).
Constitutional and procedural challenges
- High Threshold for Impeachment: The requirement of a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament makes it extremely difficult to remove a judge, even if there is strong evidence of misconduct. This has led to concerns about the judiciary’s accountability.
- Limited Scope of Inquiry: The inquiry committee’s mandate is limited to investigating “proved misbehavior or incapacity,” which has been interpreted narrowly by courts. This can hinder the investigation of other forms of judicial misconduct, such as bias or corruption.
- Lack of Transparency: The impeachment process is largely opaque, with limited public scrutiny of the inquiry proceedings. This can raise concerns about fairness and impartiality.
- Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court has intervened in the impeachment process on several occasions, raising questions about the appropriate balance between judicial independence and accountability.
- Preliminary Requirement of Parliamentary Approval: The process begins only if a motion for impeachment is admitted in Parliament, creating a political bottleneck. The Speaker or Chairman decides on the admissibility, which can lead to delays or dismissals based on political considerations.
- Long and Complex Proceedings: The three-member inquiry committee operates like a trial court, often prolonging the resolution of cases. Justice V. Ramaswami, for instance, continued in office even after being found guilty by the committee due to Parliament’s failure to secure the required majority.
Suggestions for Reform
- Strengthen Accountability Framework: Introduce a judicial oversight body, such as a Judicial Accountability Commission, to address complaints of bias and impropriety.
- Post-Retirement Restrictions: Amend laws to disqualify judges found guilty of misconduct from holding future public office or receiving retirement benefits.
- Continuation of Inquiries Post-Resignation: Ensure inquiries continue irrespective of resignation, as suggested by the Forum for Judicial Accountability, to reinforce the principle of accountability.
- Transparent and Streamlined Processes: Simplify procedures to reduce political interference and delay while ensuring fairness.
- Public Disclosure: Enhance transparency by making inquiry findings public, subject to safeguards to protect judicial independence.
Conclusion
While the existing framework under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and constitutional provisions ensure the independence of the judiciary, the high threshold for impeachment, procedural delays, and structural loopholes impede effective accountability. Reforms to address these challenges are essential to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and maintain public trust in the system.
