Judicial accountability system needs urgent effective reform

Source: The post Judicial accountability system needs urgent effective reform has been created, based on the article “Are existing mechanisms effective in combating judicial corruption?” published in “The Hindu” on 11 April 2025. Judicial accountability system needs urgent effective reform.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Governance-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Context: The recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has sparked serious discussions about the effectiveness of mechanisms to combat judicial corruption. The Chief Justice of India initiated an in-house inquiry, leading to wider debates on judicial accountability and transparency.

For detailed information on Judicial misconduct needs transparent and accountable investigation read this article here

Transparency in Judicial Inquiries

1. Public Trust Requires Openness: The judiciary must function transparently to retain public trust. In the Varma case, the Supreme Court proactively released the video footage of the cash recovery. This helped curb public speculation and demonstrated a commitment to openness.
2. Beyond Crisis-Based Transparency: While the release was effective, transparency should not be an ad hoc response. It needs to become institutionalised. At the same time, the judiciary must protect the accused’s right to a fair trial by making disclosures on a case-by-case basis.
3. Better Public Communication: Dedicated communication personnel should be appointed to manage media narratives, reduce misinformation, and strengthen the public’s confidence in judicial processes.

Need for Reform in In-House Mechanisms

1. Origin and Purpose: The in-house mechanism was introduced to protect judges from unfair targeting, especially by the executive. It was shaped by the Supreme Court’s 1991 judgment in the Delhi Judicial Service Association case, which set standards for handling judicial officers.
2. Systemic Weaknesses: Despite its protective goals, the mechanism lacks effectiveness in serious cases. The acquittal of judges in corruption cases—even with substantial evidence—shows delays and inefficiencies in the process. Legislative reform can help close these gaps and improve internal accountability.

Limitations of the Impeachment Process

1. High Threshold, Low Impact: Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and an absolute majority of all members. This high threshold makes it nearly impossible to use and fails to serve as an effective deterrent.
2. Shielding Misconduct: Instead of promoting accountability, this process often shields judges. It is rarely successful, and serious misconduct can go unpunished due to procedural barriers.
3. Protecting Independence, but at a Cost: Though designed to protect judges from political targeting, delays like the 15-year-long case involving a former High Court judge show how the process can also undermine justice.

Judicial Appointments and Executive Influence

1. Informal Role of Government: Though the collegium system handles appointments, the government often holds a de facto veto. It delays or ignores recommendations, effectively blocking the elevation of several deserving judges.
2. Eroding Transparency: The collegium has become a search-and-selection body influenced by executive preferences. A short-lived practice of publishing reasons for appointments brought hope for transparency, but it has been discontinued.

Critique of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010

1. Lack of Enforceable Standards The Bill fails to define clear judicial standards. It does not require judges to disclose if their relatives are practicing in the same court—an obvious conflict of interest.
2. Oversight Bodies Not the Solution: Proposing new oversight bodies, often staffed by retired judges, would repeat existing systemic flaws. Instead, peer reviews—already informally practiced—should be institutionalised to catch early signs of misconduct.

Question for practice:

Examine the current mechanisms for judicial accountability in India in light of Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, highlighting their strengths and limitations.