Mentor’s Comment:  The current system to deal with corruption in the judiciary includes in-house inquiries, impeachment, and oversight by the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it is often slow, and secretive, and rarely results in strict action. Lack of transparency and political influence can weaken its impact, making it less effective in ensuring full accountability of judges.

Today’s editorial talks about problems in making judges more accountable. It highlights gaps in how judicial misconduct is handled and why better checks are needed. This topic is useful for UPSC GS Paper 2 (governance, transparency) and GS Paper 4 (ethics, integrity in public life).

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

Last month, a large amount of unaccounted cash was reportedly found at the official home of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. In response, Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, started an internal inquiry into the matter.

What are the limitations of the impeachment process in ensuring judicial accountability?

• High Threshold for Removal: The impeachment process requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and an absolute majority of total membership. This makes it extremely difficult to impeach a judge even in cases of credible misconduct. Eg: No judge of the Supreme Court or High Court has ever been successfully impeached in independent India, despite allegations — such as in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), whose impeachment failed due to political abstentions.
• Over-Reliance on Political Consensus: The process is politically driven, requiring broad support across parties, which may not be feasible in a fragmented or polarized Parliament. Political considerations often override judicial integrity in decision-making.
• Delayed and Ineffective as a Deterrent: The process is slow, opaque, and reactive, initiated only after significant public outcry or media coverage. It fails to act as a timely or effective deterrent, allowing misconduct to go unchecked. Eg: Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was acquitted nearly 15 years after a corruption inquiry, despite early evidence.

Why is there a demand to institutionalise transparency in judicial inquiries?

• Prevents Perception of Shielding Judges: Transparency helps counter the belief that the judiciary protects its own members in misconduct cases. Eg: In the Justice Yashwant Varma case, the Supreme Court proactively released CCTV footage showing recovery of unaccounted cash to pre-empt accusations of cover-up.
• Builds Public Trust and Confidence: In an era of social and mass media scrutiny, opaque proceedings can fuel public suspicion and damage the judiciary’s credibility. Making inquiry reports public can reaffirm accountability and institutional integrity.
• Reduces Speculation and Misinformation: Lack of official communication can lead to rumours or leaks, which may distort facts and undermine due process. Eg: Experts have suggested appointing dedicated communications personnel in the judiciary to clarify facts and handle sensitive disclosures responsibly.

Who informally influences judicial appointments, and how does it impact the collegium?

• Executive’s Role in Informal Consultations: Even before formal recommendations, the executive is consulted informally, allowing it to influence selections. Eg: The Union Government often shares IB (Intelligence Bureau) inputs that can sway or stall decisions by the collegium.
• De Facto Executive Veto: The government can withhold or delay approval of names without giving reasons, effectively creating a veto power. Eg: Several appointments have been indefinitely delayed by the executive sitting on the collegium’s recommendations.
• Impact on Transparency and Candidate Morale: This opaque and selective process discourages deserving candidates from participating in judicial selection. Eg: Many lawyers and judges avoid the process due to its lack of transparency and potential for humiliation.

How can peer review within the judiciary be strengthened to prevent judicial misconduct?

• Institutionalising Informal FeedbackRegularise the informal feedback already exchanged within legal circles into a formal review system. Eg: Concerns shared among judges and lawyers about a colleague’s integrity can be compiled and assessed systematically.
• Involving Bar Associations: Inputs from bar associations can serve as early warnings of problematic judicial behaviour. Eg: If advocates repeatedly report bias or misconduct by a judge, it could trigger a formal internal review.
• Mandatory Periodic Evaluations: Judges could undergo peer-reviewed performance evaluations at regular intervals. Eg: Evaluation of case disposal rates, conduct in court, and legal soundness of judgments by a panel of peers.
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Enforce mandatory disclosures of family members practicing in the same court or other potential conflicts. Eg: If a judge’s relative practices in the same court, either the judge is transferred or the relative is barred from appearing.
• Protection of Whistleblowers Within Judiciary: Create a safe mechanism for judges or staff to report unethical conduct without fear of retaliation. Eg: A junior judge or clerk reporting bribe attempts or unusual case assignments should be protected and heard confidentially.

When can contempt laws allow public scrutiny without undermining judicial dignity?

• When Criticism is in Good Faith and Based on Facts: Legitimate concerns or constructive criticism aimed at reform, not defamation, should be allowed. Eg: A lawyer or journalist pointing out procedural delays or lack of transparency in judicial appointments based on verified data.
• When the Speech is Not Intended to Scandalise the Court: Public discourse that respects the institution but critiques specific actions or decisions helps improve accountability. Eg: Civil society groups questioning a controversial verdict or delay in inquiry, without using derogatory language.
• When It Promotes Institutional Integrity: Scrutiny that leads to reform and helps maintain the credibility of the judiciary should not be penalised. Eg: Media coverage exposing corruption in the judiciary, like the Justice Yashwant Varma case, can lead to necessary reforms if done responsibly.

Way forward:

• Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: A permanent and independent authority comprising retired judges, legal scholars, and public representatives can investigate complaints, oversee peer reviews, and recommend disciplinary action.
• Codify Transparent Guidelines and Communication Protocols: Formulate clear, time-bound procedures for judicial appointments, disclosures, and inquiry mechanisms with mandatory public reporting (where appropriate). Eg: Publish annual integrity audits, conflict-of-interest registers, and inquiry outcomes (with due protection for sensitive data) to uphold public trust.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now