JUDICIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY
Independence of judiciary
The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in
accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements,
pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Transparency in appointment, security of tenure, separation of power
❖ No interference by govt
Union of India v Sankal Chand, AIR 1977 SC 2328
It is of the essence of judicial service that there is no master and servant relationship between a
Judge and the Government. The Judge cannot be asked by the Government to decide a case in
a particular way.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC
149
The majority (4:3) of the Court held that under Article 124(2) of the
Constitution, the word ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’ and ruled
further that the concept of primacy of the Chief Justice of India is not really
to be found in the Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court was
widely criticized as the balance tilted in favour of the executive.
After this judgment, certain appointments were made by the Executive over-
ruling the advice of the Chief Justice of India.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 441
In 1993, a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court over-ruled the
decision in the First Judges’ case. The Bench (7:2) devised a specific
procedure for appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court in the interest of
“protecting the integrity and guarding the independence of the judiciary.”
For the same reason, the primacy of the Chief Justice of India was held to be
essential.
It held that the recommendation in that behalf should be made by the Chief
Justice of India in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues and that
such recommendation should normally be given effect to by the executive.
The three-member body would be referred as ‘Collegium’.
It was also laid down that the senior-most judge should always be appointed
as the Chief Justice of India.
99th Constitution Amendment Act, 2014
The Act envisaged setting up a National Judicial Appointments Commission. It seeks to insert new
Articles 124A, 124B and 124C after Article 124 of the Constitution.
The Commission consist of six members:
the Chief Justice of India, Chairperson, ex officio;
two other senior Judges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice of India – Members, ex
officio;
the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice – Member, ex offico;
two eminent persons who will be nominated by the committee
❖ Composition of committee:
consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the House
of the People or where there is no such Leader of Opposition, then, the Leader of single largest
Opposition Party in the House of the People.
One of the eminent persons shall be nominated from amongst the persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities or Women. Further,
eminent persons shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for re-
nomination.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 117
Amendment struck down by Supreme court
Accountability of judiciary
The concept of judicial accountability holds that Judges are responsible for the
decisions they make. It also means that justices have to take responsibility for
their actions.
Generally, it means being responsible to any external body. Transparency in the
functioning and decision-making process is one of the crucial aspect that
ensures accountability.
All wings of Government belong to the people, when the legislature and the
executive both are accountable, the judiciary cannot remain unaccountable and
absolute. No person, howsoever high is above the law similarly, no institution
howsoever sanctified can claim to be unaccountable.
NEED FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
1. It promotes the rule of law by deterring conduct that might
compromise judicial independence, integrity and impartiality.
2. It promotes public confidence in judges and judiciary.
3. It promotes institutional responsibility by rendering the
judiciary responsive to the needs of the public it serves as a
separate branch of the government.
“Corruption undermines the core of the administration of justice,
generating a substantial obstacle to the right to an impartial trial, and
severely undermining the population's trust in the judiciary." - UNODC
Government of India Act, 1935
This Act, which was the basis for the present Constitution of India, apart from defining
High Courts, also indicated the procedure of removing a judge from office on grounds of
“misbehaviour or of infirmity of the mind or body”
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would look into the matter. On such a
recommendation from the Judicial Committee, the Governor of the state would remove
such Judge from service.
It was the first step taken by the Government after setting up of the High Courts to
ensure that there was a certain level of accountability in the Judiciary by ensuring that
the candidates for the Judiciary were qualified for the post. It also ensured that those
judges who were not capable of rendering judgements or coping with judicial activities
could be removed.
Article 235
Accountability is a facet of independence the Constitution has provided in
Article 235, for the ‘control’ of the High Court over the Subordinate Judiciary
clearly indicating the provision of an effective mechanism to enforce
accountability.
Procedure for subordinate judiciary:
Conduct rules, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules
for taking disciplinary actions
Misconduct- charges framed by disciplinary committee- inquiry officer appointed-
opportunity of being heard will be given to judge- Minor or major penalty can be imposed
– for removal of Judge address should be made to Governor
Article 124 and 217
(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order
of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a
majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two –
thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the
President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or
incapacity.
(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and
for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause
(4).
Article 217 (b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner
provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court
The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968
In pursuance of the provisions of Article 124(5) of the Constitution the Judges (Inquiry)
Act, 1968 was enacted to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of the
"misbehavior" or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court and for
the presentation of an address by Parliament to the President and for matters connected
therewith.
A motion has to be introduced in the Parliament with the assent of 100 votes in the Lok
Sabha or 50 votes in the Rajya Sabha. On acceptance of the motion by either the
Speaker or the Chairman, as the case maybe, the complaint against the judge is handed
over for investigation to a Committee.
❖ Committee consisting of three members of whom—
(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme
Court;
(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and
(c) one shall be a person who is, in the opinion of, the Speaker or, as the case may be,
the Chairman, a distinguished jurist.
The Committee shall frame definite charges against the Judge on the basis of
which the investigation is proposed to be held.
Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on which each such
charge is based shall be communicated to the Judge and he shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of presenting a written statement of defence.
If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is guilty of
any misbehaviour or suffers from any incapacity, then, the motion, together
with the report of the Committee, be taken up for consideration by the House
or the Houses of Parliament in which it is pending.
If the motion is adopted by each House of Parliament in accordance with the
provisions of clause (4) of article 124, then, the misbehaviour or incapacity of
the Judge shall be deemed to have been proved and an address praying for
the removal of the Judge shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the
President by each House of Parliament in the same session in which the
motion has been adopted.
However, the mechanism under the Judges Inquiry Act is
one that can only be followed if serious allegations are
levelled against the judge. In case there are minor
allegations that do not warrant the impeachment of the
Judge, the Parliament would be left helpless as they can
neither punish the judge with other measures nor impeach
him for a small offence. Hence, the Act failed to serve the
intention of upholding Judicial Accountability in quite a
few circumstances.
The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005
The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005, was introduced to establish a comprehensive framework for
investigating allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity among judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts in India. It proposed the creation of a Judicial Council comprising five
senior judges, including the Chief Justice of India, to handle such inquiries.
The Bill allowed any citizen to file complaints against judges, which would be examined by
the National Judicial Council. If the complaint was deemed valid, it would be forwarded to
an Investigation or Inquiry Committee. The Council would review the committee's findings
and recommend impeachment to the President if the judge was found guilty of misbehavior
or incapacity to continue in office.
The Law Commission's 195th Report supported the creation of a National Judicial Council to
ensure judicial independence, while recommending that the Chief Justice of India be
excluded from the ‘complaint procedure’ to maintain judicial smoothness. It also proposed
that complaints against a Supreme Court judge should continue if they are later appointed
Chief Justice of India.
Standing committee recommendation
The standing committee recommended a complete overhaul of the Council's
composition,including retired judges, legal experts, practicing lawyers, and a
few sitting judges.
The Committee expressed concerns about allowing any person to file
complaints against higher judiciary members, fearing it could lead to frivolous
complaints from disgruntled litigants or advocates, potentially undermining
judicial independence.
The Bill however, after much deliberation and discussion, lapsed.
Judicial Standard and Accountability Bill, 2010
After the failure of the 2005 Bill, no efforts were made to revise the
inadequate 1968 Act on Judges' Inquiry. In response to declining public
confidence in government institutions, the Parliament introduced the Judicial
Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.
Any person can file a complaint against a Judge of the High Court or the
Supreme Court and his identity would be kept confidential.
Scrutiny Panel would review the complaint and further investigations would
be conducted by an Inquiry Committee. Observations would be compiled in a
report and depending on the outcome, the Oversight Committee would
suggest further steps to the Parliament.
It allows the Oversight Committee to take actions like issuing warnings or
advisories when a judge's offence doesn't justify removal.
It proposes an Oversight Committee comprising both judicial and non-judicial
members.
A positive aspect of the Bill is its clear definition of ideal judicial conduct,
outlining the duties and obligations judges owe to the judiciary, legal profession,
society, and the country.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, was introduced in the Lok
Sabha on December 1, 2010, and passed on March 29, 2012. However, it was not
taken up for discussion in the Rajya Sabha and thus did not become law.
Subsequently, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2022, was introduced
in the Lok Sabha on July 4, 2022. This bill aims to lay down judicial standards and
provide for the accountability of judges.
As of now, It has not yet been enacted into law.
Justice Ramaswami impeachment case
The impeachment proceedings against Justice Ramaswami began in 1991,
with accusations related to misappropriation of funds and misuse of his
official residence while serving as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court.
The charges included allegations of financial misconduct, including
overspending on renovations for his official residence.
A committee was formed to investigate the charges, and the inquiry found
him guilty on several counts.
Despite the findings, the impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha failed due to
insufficient votes, and Justice Ramaswami continued his tenure until
retirement in 1994.
Justice Soumitra Sen impeachment case
Justice Soumitra Sen, a former judge of the Calcutta High Court, faced
impeachment proceedings in 2011 due to allegations of misappropriating funds
during his tenure as a court-appointed receiver. The Rajya Sabha voted in favor of
his impeachment, finding him guilty of misappropriating funds as a judge.
Prior to the impeachment vote, Justice Sen resigned from his position on
September 1, 2011, effectively ending the impeachment process. His resignation
letter stated that, since the Rajya Sabha had decided he should not continue as a
judge, he chose to resign rather than face further proceedings.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala
In December 2015, Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court faced an
impeachment motion initiated by 58 Rajya Sabha MPs. The MPs objected to
remarks he made in a judgment concerning the sedition charges against Hardik
Patel, a leader of the Patidar reservation movement. In his judgment, Justice
Pardiwala stated that "reservation and corruption" had hindered the country's
progress and criticized the prolonged duration of reservation policies.
A group of 58 Rajya Sabha MPs (members of Parliament) didn’t like the judge's
comments. They thought his remarks were wrong and unconstitutional. As a result,
they filed a motion to remove him from office.
After the motion was filed, Justice Pardiwala apologized for the remarks and said
that they were not relevant to the case he was hearing. He decided to remove the
comments from his ruling.
Since the judge removed the remarks and apologized, the impeachment motion
didn’t go any further.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
In December 2016, 61 Rajya Sabha members initiated an impeachment motion against Justice C.V.
Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court, citing several allegations:
1. Misuse of Judicial Position: Allegations were made that Justice Reddy pressurised a subordinate
judge to alter a dying declaration to remove the name of his brother, Pavan Kumar Reddy, leading
to claims of caste-based abuse.
2. Allegations of Dalit Atrocities: His wife and daughter were accused of registering a false FIR
against Dalit tenants, and his brother was alleged to have committed atrocities against the Dalit
community under his protection.
3. Disproportionate Assets: He was alleged to have accumulated movable and immovable properties
worth several crores, disproportionate to his known sources of income.
4. Non-Disclosure of Assets: He was accused of failing to disclose his assets and liabilities, violating
the Code of Conduct for judges.
5. Misconduct as an Advocate: Allegations were made regarding his conduct during his tenure as
Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
6. Subsequently, some MPs withdrew their support for the impeachment motion. By December 2016,
the motion failed to proceed due to insufficient support.
Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly (2013)
In 2013, a law intern accused retired Supreme Court judge Asok
Kumar Ganguly of sexual harassment during her internship in
December 2012. An internal Supreme Court panel found the
allegations to have merit, describing the behavior as "unwelcome"
and of a sexual nature. Consequently, Justice Ganguly resigned from
his position as the chairperson of the West Bengal Human Rights
Commission. However, due to the victim's reluctance to testify, no
criminal case was pursued.
