Font size:
Print
Code of Conduct for Judges
Context:
Remarks made by Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, at an event have drawn widespread criticism.
More on News
- Speaking at the High Court premises, Justice Yadav stated that India should function according to the wishes of the majority.
- He further claimed that children from one community are taught kindness and tolerance, whereas those of “another community” are exposed to practices such as animal slaughter, affecting their values.
- On the issue of the Uniform Civil Code, he contrasted Hindu reverence for women with practices like polygamy, Halala, and triple talaq in the Muslim community.
- These remarks have been noted by the Supreme Court, which stated that it has sought details from the Allahabad High Court, adding that the “matter is under consideration.”
Judicial Ethics and Conduct
- The judiciary derives its power from public trust in its authority and integrity.
- The ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,’ adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, outlines ethical standards for judges.
- The first rule of this code states that a judge’s behavior must reaffirm public faith in the judiciary’s impartiality, cautioning against actions that erode credibility.
- It also emphasises that judges must remain mindful of being under public scrutiny.
- The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002, another key framework, highlights the importance of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of judges.
- While acknowledging a judge’s right to freedom of expression, it stresses that judges must preserve the dignity of their office and uphold judicial independence.
- The principles also require judges to understand societal diversity and ensure equal treatment for all.
Process for Judicial Impeachment
- The Constitution provides for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges on grounds of “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”
- This requires an order from the President following a successful impeachment process in Parliament.
- A removal motion must be supported by a special majority—two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House.
- Except for such motions, the Constitution prohibits legislative discussions on judicial misconduct.
- However, the Supreme Court has established an in-house procedure for addressing serious allegations against judges.
In-House Mechanism
- Complaints against High Court judges can be addressed to the President, the CJI, or the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court.
- If deemed serious, the High Court Chief Justice may seek a response from the judge and forward the matter to the CJI.
- The CJI may appoint a fact-finding committee of senior judges to investigate the allegations.
- If the findings support removal, the CJI may ask the judge to retire voluntarily.
- If refused, the CJI can forward the report to the President and Prime Minister, initiating the impeachment process.
- Adopted formally in 1999 and published in 2014, this mechanism provides an alternative to public impeachment, aiming to protect the judiciary’s reputation while addressing misconduct.
