Ensuring Discipline Among Judges | 01 Oct 2024

Source: IE

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) expressed serious concern over remarks made by a Karnataka High Court Judge.

• The SC dropped its intervention after the judge tendered an apology but it highlights the constitutional limitations on how the judiciary can discipline judges.

What are the Challenges of Disciplining Judges in India?

• Constitutional Protection: Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits parliamentary discussion on the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judges, except when a motion is made for their removal.
  • Article 211 of the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from discussing the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judges in the discharge of their duties.
• Difficult Impeachment Process: Article 124(4) of the Constitution requires an impeachment motion to be supported by a majority of the total membership and at least two-thirds of members present and voting in each House.
  • The high impeachment threshold ensures judges aren't easily removed for trivial reasons but makes addressing misconduct that does not reach the level of impeachment difficult.
  • E.g. Impeachment proceedings have been triggered only five times in history and no judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far.
• Narrow Definition: The grounds of removal are proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
  • Misbehaviour under Article 124(4) of the Constitution is a high standard, covering corruption, lack of integrity, and moral turpitude.
  • Many instances of judicial misconduct, such as indiscipline, bias, or inappropriate conduct, do not meet the threshold for impeachment, leaving the judiciary with few options to address such behaviour.

What are Other Provisions of Disciplining Judges?

• Judicial Intervention: The SC can take judicial action to discipline judges.
  • E.g. In 2017, the SC held Calcutta High Court’s C S Karnan guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.
• Transfer Policy: The SC Collegium, comprising five senior-most judges of the Supreme court including the CJI, recommends the transfer of High Court judges.
  • Since the decisions of the Collegium are opaque, this transfer policy can be deployed as a tool to discipline judges as well.
  • E.g. While impeachment of Justice P D Dinakaran, a Karnataka High Court judge pending, the Collegium transferred him to the Sikkim High Court.
• In-House Inquiry Procedure: Under the in-house inquiry procedure of 1999, the CJI can request a comment from the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, who then seeks a response from the judge involved.
  • If a more thorough investigation is deemed necessary, a three-member committee comprising two chief justices from other high courts and one high court judge may be formed to conduct a fact-finding inquiry.
• Censure Policy: The judge concerned can be advised to resign from his office or seek voluntary retirement.
  • If the judge refuses to resign or retire, the CJI can advise the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court not to assign any judicial work to the judge.
• Restatement of Values of Judicial Life 1997: The SC adopted a Charter called the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life in 1997 consisting of 16 points.
  • It is a code of judicial ethics and serves as a guide for an independent and fair judiciary which can help in maintaining discipline among judges.

What Measures can be Taken to ensure Discipline among Judges?

• Establishment of a National Judicial Council (NJC): Revive and pass the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, which aims to create the NJC to oversee inquiries into allegations of incapacity or misbehaviour by judges.
• Judicial Oversight Committee: Revive and pass the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 that provided for establishing the National Judicial Oversight Committee, the Complaints Scrutiny Panel, and an investigation committee.
• Clear Standards of Conduct: Develop and implement a Code of Conduct for judges that outlines expected behaviour, ethical standards, and procedures for addressing violations. This code should be publicly accessible to promote accountability.
• Judicial Performance Evaluation: Implement a system for evaluating judges' performance based on criteria such as case disposal rates, adherence to ethical standards, and feedback from litigants and peers.
  • For example, in Odisha, a judicial officer is expected to achieve workoutput equivalent to 240 working days in a year.
• Asset Declaration and Transparency: Mandate judges to declare their assets and liabilities, and make this information publicly available. This measure can help deter corruption and enhance public trust in the judiciary.
• Mandatory Training and Workshops: Institute regular training programs and workshops on judicial ethics, anti-discrimination laws, and the importance of impartiality to foster a culture of accountability among judges.
• Judicial Independence Safeguards: While enhancing accountability, it is crucial to safeguard judicial independence. Any reforms should ensure that the processes for holding judges accountable do not undermine their ability to make impartial decisions.