Font size:
Print
How the Supreme Court Deals with Errant Judges?
Context:
A five-judge Supreme Court Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, recently expressed serious concern over remarks made by Karnataka High Court Justice V. Srishananda.
More on News:
- In a hearing earlier this month, Justice Srishananda referred to a Bengaluru locality as “in Pakistan” and made an “objectionable” comment toward a female lawyer during another hearing.
- Although the judge issued an apology, prompting the Supreme Court to drop its intervention, even a mild rebuke from the apex court toward a judge of a constitutional court is unusual and conveys a strong message.
- The incident also underscores the constitutional limitations in how the judiciary can discipline its own judges.
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
Drafted in 2001 and adopted in 2002, they were created by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and have received international recognition, including endorsement from the United Nations. These principles serve as a framework for judges globally, guiding them in their conduct and decision-making processes to uphold justice and public trust in the legal system.
Connection to Judicial Ethics and Natural Justice
- Judicial Ethics: The principles provide a structured approach to ethical behaviour for judges, ensuring that they act with integrity, impartiality, and independence—key tenets of judicial ethics.
- Natural Justice: This legal philosophy emphasises fairness in legal proceedings. The principles support natural justice by advocating for impartiality and equality before the law, ensuring that every individual receives a fair hearing without bias or discrimination.
Impeachment or Nothing:
- Judges of constitutional courts are granted significant protections to ensure they can exercise their powers without fear of interference from the executive.
- However, this raises a challenging question: who oversees the judiciary?
- According to the Constitution, impeachment is the only formal method for addressing misconduct by judges, making it a political process.
- Article 124(4) states that a Supreme Court or High Court judge can be removed from office only through a presidential order, following approval by each House of Parliament with a majority of the total membership and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, based on “proved misbehaviour or incapacity (Article 217).”
- These are the sole grounds for removing a constitutional court judge, and the high political consensus required makes impeachment exceedingly difficult.
- In India’s history, impeachment proceedings have been initiated only five times, including against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), Justice Soumitra Sen (2011), and CJI Justice Dipak Misra (2018), but none have been successful, though Justice Sen resigned after Rajya Sabha passed the motion.
- Many actions, such as indiscipline, minor corruption, bias, or inappropriate conduct, like Justice Srishananda’s case, may not meet the high standard for impeachment or be difficult to prove or garner political support for.
- Since the only alternative to impeachment is often inaction, the Supreme Court has developed informal ways to discipline judges over the years.
Judicial Intervention:
- The first method of addressing judicial misconduct is through judicial action, as seen in the current case.
- In 2017, a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by then CJI Jagdish Khehar found Calcutta High Court Justice C.S. Karnan guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in prison.
- This decision stemmed from Justice Karnan’s controversial actions while serving at the Madras High Court, including “sentencing” Supreme Court judges to imprisonment and accusing the judiciary of nepotism, casteism, and corruption. His transfer to the Calcutta High Court in 2016 was also related to these incidents.
- Although Justice Karnan retired just a month after the Supreme Court’s verdict, his imprisonment set an uneasy precedent, raising concerns about one constitutional court disciplining judges of another.
- While district courts are under the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts, the dynamic between High Courts and the Supreme Court is different.
- As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court’s rulings are final and binding. Through judicial action, it can reprimand judges, even though this power is not explicitly outlined in law.
Transfer Policy:
- Another way the Supreme Court exerts influence over High Court judges is through the Collegium system.
- The Supreme Court Collegium, composed of the five senior-most judges, including the Chief Justice of India, is responsible for recommending the transfer of High Court judges.
- Due to the opaque nature of Collegium decisions, the transfer policy can also be used as a tool for disciplining judges.
- The 2010 case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran is a notable example of this practice. While removal proceedings were underway in Parliament, Justice Dinakaran, a Karnataka High Court judge, was transferred to the Sikkim High Court amidst allegations of land grabbing and corruption.
- Critics argued that this move merely “transferred corruption” rather than addressing it directly. Justice Dinakaran eventually resigned in 2011.
