Impeachment Process and Judicial Accountability in India

• 12 Dec 2024

Prelims: Article 124(4), Article 218, Judges Inquiry Act 1968, Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002, Restatement of Values of Judicial Life 1997, Supreme Court, High Court, Parliament 

Mains: Judicial Accountability in India, Ethical Standards for Judges, Independence of Judiciary and Accountability 

Source: IE 

Why in News? 

Recently, an impeachment motion is being considered against a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court following his controversial remarks at an event organized by a religious organisation. The remarks, deemed by many as communally charged, have raised concerns about judicial propriety and impartiality. 

What is the Impeachment Process for Judges in India? 

• About: 
  • Impeachment, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, refers colloquially to the process by which a judge can be removed from office by Parliament. 
  • The impeachment process for judges in India serves as a crucial mechanism to uphold judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary.  
• Constitutional Safeguards and Grounds for Impeachment: 
  • Article 124(4): The article outlines the removal process for Supreme Court judges, which is applicable to High Court judges as per Article 218. The grounds for impeachment are explicitly limited to “proved misbehaviour” and “incapacity”. 
    • Proved Misbehavior: Actions or conduct by a judge that breaches the ethical and professional standards of the judiciary. 
    • Incapacity: A judge's inability to perform judicial duties due to physical or mental infirmity. 
• Steps in the Impeachment Process: 
  • Initiation of Motion: 
    • A motion for impeachment must be supported by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. 
    • The Speaker or Chairman may review relevant materials and consult individuals before deciding whether to admit or reject the motion.  
      • For example in 2018, the motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra was rejected after due consideration. 
    • This ensures that the process cannot be initiated casually or without significant support from elected representatives. 
  • Formation of an Inquiry Committee: 
    • Upon admission of the motion, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha constitutes a three-member committee comprising: 
      • The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge. 
      • The Chief Justice of a High Court. 
      • A distinguished jurist. 
    • The committee conducts a thorough inquiry into the allegations, gathering evidence and examining witnesses to determine the validity of the charges. 
  • Committee Report and Parliamentary Debate: 
    • The committee submits its findings to the presiding officer of the House where the motion was introduced. If the judge is found guilty of the alleged misconduct or incapacity, the report is debated in Parliament. 
    • Both Houses of Parliament must approve the motion with a special majority, requiring: 
      • A majority of the total membership of the House. 
      • At least two-thirds of the members present and vote. 
  • Final Removal by the President: 
    • Once the motion is adopted in both Houses it shall be presented to the President in the same session in which the motion has been adopted. 
• Checks and Balances: 
  • High Thresholds for Impeachment: The stringent requirements for initiating and approving an impeachment motion protect against misuse of the process. 
  • Objective Inquiry by Experts: The inclusion of judicial and legal experts in the inquiry committee ensures a fair and impartial investigation. 
  • Parliamentary Oversight: By involving both Houses of Parliament, the process ensures accountability through democratic scrutiny. 
• Instances of Impeachment Attempts: 
  • India has witnessed a few attempts at impeachment, with notable cases like those of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011). 
    • While none have resulted in a complete removal, these instances highlight the process's rigor and its role in upholding accountability. 

What Guidelines Regulate Judges’ Public Statements? 

• Freedom of Expression with Responsibility: Judges, like all citizens, are entitled to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order, morality, and the integrity of their office. 
  • Public statements by judges must be measured and avoid any hint of bias or partiality, ensuring that they uphold the dignity of their judicial office. 
• Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) 
• Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) 
• In-House Mechanisms for Judicial Conduct: The judiciary has internal protocols to address instances where judges’ public statements may be seen as inappropriate or controversial. 
• Specific Guidelines on Judicial Restraint: 
  • Non-Interference in Political Matters: Judges are expected to abstain from commenting on political events or policies to avoid being perceived as partisan. 
  • Refraining from Prejudging Cases: Judges must avoid making statements about ongoing cases or legal issues that could be interpreted as prejudgment or bias. 
  • No Participation in Controversial Events: Judges should avoid participating in events or forums that could appear to compromise their independence or align them with a specific ideology or group. 
• Supreme Court Observations: 
  • In Justice C.S. Karnan’s case (2017), the court highlighted the damage caused by a judge’s public statements undermining the judiciary’s integrity. 
• Challenges in Implementation Guidelines: 
  • Lack of Codified Rules: Some aspects of judicial behavior, such as public statements, rely on conventions rather than statutory regulations. 
  • Gray Areas in Freedom of Speech: Balancing a judge’s right to free expression with their responsibility to maintain judicial propriety is often subjective. 

How can the Judiciary Uphold Impartiality in a Diverse Society? 

• Adherence to Constitutional Values: The Constitution enshrines principles of equality, justice, and secularism, which serve as the judiciary's guiding framework.  
  • Judges must interpret and apply these principles without prejudice or favor. 
• Ensuring Representation in the Judiciary: 
  • Inclusive Recruitment: Ensuring that judges from varied backgrounds, including underrepresented communities, are appointed to the bench. 
  • Gender Balance: Encouraging greater representation of women in the judiciary to address gender biases in legal interpretation. 
  • Awareness of Marginalized Groups: Judges must be trained to recognize the challenges faced by minorities and marginalized communities. 
• Education and Sensitisation of Judges: 
  • Training on Diversity and Equality: Judicial academies should regularly conduct programs on cultural competence, implicit bias, and sensitivity towards social diversity. 
  • Awareness of Historical Disparities: Judges must understand the systemic inequities that exist within society and how these affect individuals’ access to justice. 
• Objective Decision-Making: 
  • Judicial decisions must be based solely on facts, evidence, and applicable laws, without being influenced by the identities of the parties involved. 
  • Judges must provide well-reasoned judgments that demonstrate their neutrality and adherence to the rule of law. 
• Addressing Systemic Biases in the Judiciary: 
  • Review of Precedents: Courts should critically examine past judgments to identify and address instances where biases may have influenced decisions. 
  • Equitable Interpretation of Laws: Judges must ensure that laws are applied in a manner that promotes equality and justice, particularly for disadvantaged groups. 
• Proactive Measures to Protect Vulnerable Groups: 
  • Social Justice Bench: Special benches, such as the one established by the Supreme Court in 2014, focus on addressing issues affecting marginalized communities. 
  • Legal Aid and Pro Bono Services: Ensuring legal assistance for economically weaker sections enhances inclusivity and impartiality. 
• The Role of Civil Society and Media: 
  • An informed civil society and vigilant media can act as watchdogs, ensuring that judicial impartiality is maintained. 
  • Constructive criticism and scrutiny of judicial actions help reinforce accountability without compromising independence. 

Conclusion 

Maintaining impartiality and public trust is vital for the judiciary in a diverse democracy like India. Instances of controversial conduct underscore the need for balancing judicial accountability with independence. Robust impeachment mechanisms, adherence to constitutional values, and proactive measures like training and inclusive representation are essential to uphold the judiciary's integrity and reinforce its role as a guardian of justice and equality.  

Drishti Mains Question:

Judicial accountability is essential to uphold the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary, especially in a diverse society like India. Comment. 

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) 

Mains

Q1. Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world's most powerful judiciary? (2024)

Q2. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)

Q3.  Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)