What’s in Today’s Article?

• Introduction (Context of the Article)
• Accountability of Judges (Legal Framework, Impeachment Process, Case Studies, Need for Reforms, etc.)

Introduction:

• The accountability of judges in India, particularly in the higher judiciary, remains a contentious issue due to the complex mechanisms and significant immunity granted to them.
• Recent events, such as controversial remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, have reignited the debate on judicial accountability and the difficulties in addressing judicial misconduct effectively.

Accountability Mechanism for Judges:

• Legal Framework:
  • The process for holding judges accountable is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, supported by Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution.
• Review Process:
  • A judge can only be removed based on "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" as determined by a three-member committee comprising:
    • A Supreme Court judge
    • A Chief Justice of a High Court
    • An eminent jurist
• Impeachment Process:
  • Initiation of impeachment requires a motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, approved by the respective presiding officer.
  • Removal demands a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses of Parliament.

Case Studies Highlighting the Challenges:

• Justice V. Ramaswamy (Supreme Court Judge)
  • Allegations: Accused of financial impropriety, such as extravagant spending on his official residence and misusing public funds.
  • Outcome:
    • A committee found him guilty, leading to the Chief Justice of India deciding not to allocate any work to him.
    • Despite this, the impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha failed in 1993 due to abstentions by the ruling Congress Party.
    • Justice Ramaswamy continued in office and retired with full benefits, highlighting the inadequacy of the impeachment process.
• Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court Judge)
  • Allegations: Misappropriation of ₹33.23 lakh as a court-appointed receiver and misrepresentation of facts.
  • Outcome:
    • Found guilty by a three-member committee.
    • Rajya Sabha voted for his removal, but he resigned before the motion could be tabled in the Lok Sabha.
    • His resignation underscored the challenge of ensuring accountability once a judge steps down.
• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (Sikkim High Court Chief Justice)
  • Allegations: Accused of land grabbing and other serious misconduct.
  • Outcome:
    • Resigned on the day the three-member committee was to begin its proceedings.
    • His resignation effectively halted the investigation and highlighted the loophole wherein resignation can abort accountability mechanisms.

Need for Reforms:

• Continue Investigations Post-Resignation:
  • Resignation should not end an investigation, as it allows accused judges to evade accountability.
  • Legal reforms must ensure the continuation of proceedings to establish guilt or innocence, irrespective of resignation.
• Independent Oversight:
  • Establish a more robust framework to investigate allegations without requiring parliamentary approval at the initial stages.
• Revisiting the Judges (Inquiry) Act:
  • Amendments are needed to address procedural delays and reduce political interference in impeachment motions.

Conclusion:

• The current framework for holding judges accountable in India is inadequate to address instances of judicial misconduct effectively.
• High levels of immunity, coupled with procedural delays and loopholes, undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
• Strengthening the legal mechanisms and ensuring continuity in accountability processes are essential to uphold judicial integrity and maintain trust in the rule of law.