Source: This post on The Challenge of Holding Judges Accountable in India has been created based on article “The challenge of holding judges accountable” published in The Hindu on 30th December 2024.
UPSC Syllabus topics- GS 2-Polity
Context: The article delves into the challenges surrounding judicial accountability in India, focusing on the limitations and intricacies of the current mechanism for holding judges of the higher judiciary accountable. The discussion gains relevance in light of recent controversies, such as the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, and reflects on historical precedents like the cases of Justices V. Ramaswami, SoumitraSen, and P.D. Dinakaran. The Challenge of Holding Judges Accountable in India
What is the process for holding judges accountable in India?
- The review mechanism requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” as determined by a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The committee is activated only after an impeachment motion is successfully moved in either the LokSabha or the RajyaSabha and approved by the presiding officer of the House.
- Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution of India, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outline the procedure.
Why is Justice Yadav’s case significant?
Justice Yadav’s speech at an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad highlighted biases against the Muslim community, spotlighting challenges in holding judges accountable.
What were the past impeachment cases?
| Allegations against Judges | Outcome |
| Justice V. Ramaswami- · Accusations included extravagant spending on his official residence and purchases like silver-headed maces without proper tendering. · He was found guilty by the three-member committee, but an impeachment motion failed in the LokSabha in 1993 due to 205 abstentions by Congress members, despite 196 votes in favor. | Despite the motion’s failure, then CJI Sabyasachi Mukherjee did not allocate work to Justice Ramaswami, and no cases were assigned to him until his retirement. |
| Justice SoumitraSen-Misappropriation of ₹33.23 lakh in 1983 as a court-appointed receiver and misrepresentation of facts. | The RajyaSabha voted overwhelmingly for his removal, but he resigned in September 2011 before the LokSabha could table the motion. |
| Justice Dinakaran-Serious charges included appropriating over 300 acres of farmland in Tamil Nadu. | He resigned on the day of the first sitting of the three-member committee investigating the charges, effectively halting the process |
How does resignation affect accountability?
- Resignation allows judges to avoid impeachment proceedings, retain pensions, and other benefits. This is a privilege not extended to politicians or public officials.
- The Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) argued that investigations should continue post-resignation to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary and ensure accountability.
What was proposed by jurist Mohan Gopal regarding resignation and investigations?
- Gopal argued that allowing a judge’s resignation to terminate an investigation undermines the purpose of accountability.
- He emphasized the importance of completing investigations for transparency.
What are the broader implications of these issues?
- The current framework disproportionately shields judges, enabling them to evade accountability.
- Reforms are necessary to address gaps in judicial oversight, ensure public trust, and prevent misuse of resignation as a shield against accountability.
Discover more from Free UPSC IAS Preparation Syllabus and Materials For Aspirants
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
