JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Recent instances of judicial misconduct in India have reignited the debate on the mechanisms to hold judges accountable, emphasizing the need for transparency and responsibility in judicial actions.

Judicial Accountability?

Judicial accountability emphasizes that judges must take responsibility for their decisions and actions, ensuring transparency and adherence to the rule of law. It upholds public trust by requiring judges to act within legal frameworks and ethical standards.

Provisions for Judicial Accountability:

Constitutional Provisions:

  • Article 124(4) & 124(5): Facilitate the impeachment of Supreme Court judges for proven misconduct or incapacity.
  • Article 217: Provides grounds for the impeachment of High Court judges.
  • Article 235: Grants High Courts authority to oversee and control subordinate courts.
  • Restatement of Judicial Values (1997): Serves as a code of conduct for higher judiciary members.

Legal Provisions:

  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Establishes a framework for investigating judicial misconduct through a three-member panel.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Safeguards judicial independence by preventing undue interference.
  • Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (pending): Proposes enhanced transparency and oversight in judicial conduct.

Need for Judicial Accountability:

  • Maintaining Public Trust: Strengthens the credibility of the judiciary and fosters confidence in the legal system.
  • Preventing Misconduct: Ensures adherence to ethical standards and constitutional mandates.
  • Enhancing Transparency: Promotes openness in judicial decisions to ensure fairness.
  • Balancing Independence and Responsibility: Safeguards against misuse of judicial independence for personal or political gain.
  • Upholding the Rule of Law: Guarantees unbiased, equitable decisions in alignment with constitutional principles.

Examples of Judicial Accountability:

  • Justice Soumitra Sen’s Impeachment (2011): Demonstrated accountability through parliamentary action after financial misconduct as a court-appointed receiver.

Leave a Reply