Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Issues related to the Judiciary;
Why in the News?
Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, showing bias against Muslims, has raised concerns about the challenges in holding higher court judges accountable in India.
Why do the judges need to be accountable?
- Upholding Judicial Integrity: Judges are the guardians of the Constitution and are expected to exhibit the highest ethical standards to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
- Safeguarding Democracy: Accountability ensures that the judiciary acts as a fair and impartial arbiter, without overstepping or undermining democratic institutions.
- Preventing Abuse of Power: Judicial independence is vital, but unchecked power can lead to misconduct or corruption, as seen in cases like Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen.
- Maintaining Public Confidence: Accountability is critical to reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary, especially in a democracy where the judiciary acts as a check on other branches of government.
What are the accountable-related issues?
- High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
- Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
- Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
- Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.
What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
|
Is there any accountability limitation by the Constitution for the judges?
- Article 124(4) and (5): These articles provide for the removal of judges only through impeachment, which is a political and cumbersome process requiring a majority in Parliament.
- Lack of Disqualification: The Constitution does not explicitly disqualify judges found guilty of misconduct from holding future public office.
- Insufficient Deterrence: Provisions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, do not offer significant penalties apart from removal, leaving gaps in ensuring judicial accountability.
- Ambiguity in “Proved Misbehavior”: The term is not clearly defined, leading to challenges in establishing guilt and enforcing accountability.
Way forward:
- Streamlining the Impeachment Process: Simplifying procedures and reducing the threshold for initiating impeachment could make it easier to hold judges accountable.
- Clear Disqualification Guidelines: Introducing clear guidelines regarding disqualification from future judicial roles following findings of misconduct would reinforce accountability.
- Public Awareness and Advocacy: Increasing public awareness about judicial accountability issues can foster demand for reform and greater scrutiny of judicial conduct.
- Legislative Reforms: Revisiting the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to address its limitations and ensure it meets contemporary standards for accountability is crucial for restoring public confidence in the judiciary.
Mains PYQ:
Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC IAS/2017)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
