Perspective: Need to Ensure Judicial Accountability

• 09 Apr 2025

For Prelims:  Judicial Accountability, Judicial Reforms, Greater Transparency, Enhanced Accountability, Collegium System, Parliament, CJI’s (Chief Justice of India),  President, Article 143, 99^th Constitutional Amendment, 2014, NJAC Act, 2014, Supreme Court, High Courts, Chief Justice of India, Union Minister of Law and Justice, Prime Minister of India, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Democracy, Legislature, Article 111, Impeachment, Article 124(4), Article 218, Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 

For Mains: Challenges of Corruption and Lack of Accountability in Judiciary,  Measures to Build Public Trust. 

 Why in News?    

The growing controversy over the alleged recovery of large amounts of cash at the official residence of a Delhi High Court judge has raised fresh concerns about the need for judicial reforms, transparency, and accountability. 

What is the Collegium System? 

• About: 
  • The Collegium System refers to the process of appointment and transfer of judges, which has developed over time through various judgments of the Supreme Court, rather than being established by any law passed by Parliament or any provision mentioned in the Constitution. 
• Evolution of the Collegium System: 
  • First Judges Case (1981): 
    • It declared that the “primacy” of the CJI’s (Chief Justice of India) recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.” 
    • The ruling gave the Executive primacy over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years. 
  • Second Judges Case (1993): 
    • SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”. 
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC. 
  • Third Judges Case (1998): 
    • SC on the President's reference (Article 143) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues. 

 Note:         

• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was constituted through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014. The NJAC sought to replace the collegium system for judicial appointments.  
  • However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down both acts, citing executive interference and violation of judicial independence. 

What are the Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Accountability in India? 

• Lack of Transparency in Judicial Functioning: One of the most significant challenges in ensuring judicial accountability in India is the lack of transparency in the functioning of the judiciary.  
  • Unlike the legislature or the executive, judicial functioning, especially in matters of appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions, is largely insulated from public scrutiny.  
• Absence of a Robust Institutional Framework for Accountability: At present, allegations of judicial misconduct are dealt with internally through the judiciary’s own mechanisms (In-house inquiry), which are neither transparent nor accountable to the public.  
  • Although the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides for the impeachment of judges for proven misbehavior, this process is highly cumbersome, rare, and practically ineffective in addressing most instances of judicial misconduct or ethical lapses. 
  • The Constitution provides only for impeachment by Parliament, which requires a special majority in both Houses. This process is not only politically sensitive but also extremely difficult to execute successfully. 
• Nepotism in Collegium System: The collegium system has often led to appointments based on personal connections rather than merit, with relatives and close associates of judges being preferred.  
  • Despite adverse intelligence reports, the collegium’s recommendations are binding on the President, undermining accountability and transparency. 
• Judicial Misconduct and Ethical Concerns: There is no binding or enforceable code of conduct for judges beyond the advisory 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life' adopted in 1997.  
  • The 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life' is a code of judicial ethics adopted by the Supreme Court, serving as a guide for an independent and fair judiciary, ensuring the impartial administration of justice. 

 Way Forward  

• Institutional Mechanism for Accountability: Establish an independent, statutory body to enquire into allegations of judicial misconduct, corruption, or ethical violations without undermining judicial independence. 
• Reforming the Collegium System: Ensure transparency in judicial appointments and transfers by laying down clear eligibility criteria, recording reasons for selection, and making the selection process more open to public scrutiny. 
• Code of Conduct for Judges: Formulate and enforce a binding Code of Conduct for judges, along with regular declarations of assets and liabilities to ensure ethical standards and integrity in judicial conduct. 
• Time-Bound Inquiry Mechanism: Introduce a time-bound process for investigating complaints against judges to prevent cases from lingering indefinitely or being dropped due to resignation or delay tactics. 
• Greater Transparency in Judicial Functioning: Institutionalize transparency in court proceedings, appointment processes, and disciplinary actions by making relevant information accessible to the public through regular reports and disclosures. 
• Strengthening Impeachment Process: Revisit the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and streamline the impeachment procedure to make it more effective, transparent, and accessible in cases of proven misconduct. 

 UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)  

Prelims: 

Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (2021) 

1.  Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India. 
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?  

(a) 1 only   

(b) 2 only  

(c) Both 1 and 2   

(d) Neither I nor 2  

Ans: (c) 

---

 Mains:  

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

Q. 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)