Judicial accountability in India is a multifaceted concept that ensures judges are responsible for their conduct and decisions, maintaining public trust in the judiciary. This accountability is balanced with the need to preserve judicial independence, allowing judges to make impartial decisions without fear of external influence.
The Judiciary is not subjected to the same level of accountability as the Executive or the Legislative wings of the Government. The reason is that the principles of Judicial Independence and Accountability are sometimes regarded as fundamentally opposed to one another. Judicial independence is considered ‘an essential pillar of liberty and the rule of law’. So if Judiciary is made accountable to the Legislature or the Executive it will impact its Independence. So special provisions have been provided to ensure judicial accountability.
Constitutional Provisions and Mechanisms
The Constitution of India provides several mechanisms to ensure judicial accountability:
Impeachment: Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution allow for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges for "misbehaviour and incapacity" through impeachment. This process requires a rigorous investigation and a super-majority vote in both houses of Parliament.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: This act regulates the procedure for investigating allegations of misbehavior or incapacity against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. A three-member committee, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist, determines the validity of the allegations.
Control over Subordinate Judiciary: Article 235 of the Constitution grants High Courts control over the subordinate judiciary, enabling them to enforce accountability within the lower courts.
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life: In 1997, the Supreme Court adopted this charter to ensure the behavior and conduct of higher judiciary members reaffirm public faith in the judiciary's impartiality.
Challenges to Judicial Accountability
Despite these mechanisms, holding judges accountable in India faces several challenges:
High Immunity: Judges enjoy significant immunity, which can hinder effective accountability.
Procedural Delays and Loopholes: The existing legal framework suffers from delays and loopholes, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Impeachment Difficulties: The impeachment process is complex and difficult to execute, making it a challenging route for removing judges.
Independence vs. Accountability: Balancing judicial independence with accountability is a delicate task. Overzealous accountability measures could undermine the judiciary's ability to function impartially.
Contempt of Court: The power of courts to punish for contempt can be used to shield judges from public scrutiny and criticism.
Political Interference: There are instances where political pressures influence judicial decisions, compromising the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Need for Reforms
The current framework for judicial accountability in India is considered inadequate to address instances of judicial misconduct effectively. Strengthening legal mechanisms and ensuring continuity in accountability processes are essential to uphold judicial integrity and maintain trust in the rule of law. There is a need to promote accountability through self-regulation methods without jeopardizing independence.
Some possible reforms include:
Strengthening the legal framework: This could involve amending the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to make it more effective and efficient.
Ensuring transparency: Greater transparency in judicial proceedings and decision-making can enhance public trust and accountability.
Establishing a National Judicial Commission: This independent body could investigate complaints against judges and recommend appropriate action.
Promoting ethical conduct: Emphasizing ethical conduct and providing training on judicial ethics can help prevent misconduct.
By addressing these challenges and implementing appropriate reforms, India can strengthen judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment