Font size:
Print
Holding Judges Accountable
Context:
A recent speech by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, delivered at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s legal cell within the Court premises, has reignited the debate over judicial accountability in India.
More on News
- The speech, perceived as biased against the Muslim community, underscores the limitations of the existing review mechanism to address misconduct by judges of the higher judiciary.
Flaws in the Current Review Mechanism
- India’s judicial accountability process requires a finding of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” determined by a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- This committee, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist, functions like a trial court but is activated only after an impeachment motion is initiated in Parliament.
- Approval from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Vice-President/Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is necessary to begin proceedings.
- Provisions for this mechanism derive from Articles 124 (4) and (5), and Articles 217 and 218 of the Constitution, as well as the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
- Despite its procedural framework, this system has seen limited success in holding judges accountable.
Precedents in Judicial Misconduct
- Justice V. Ramaswami : The case of Justice V. Ramaswami serves as a notable example.
- Accused of extravagant and improper expenditures during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Ramaswami became the first judge to be found guilty by a three-member panel.
- However, an impeachment motion against him failed in the Lok Sabha in 1993 due to mass abstentions by Congress members, despite a majority vote in favor of removal.
- Subsequently, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sabyasachi Mukherjee decided not to assign Justice Ramaswami any cases until his retirement.
- Justice Soumitra Sen: Similarly, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court faced impeachment for misappropriating funds as a court-appointed receiver.
- While the Rajya Sabha voted overwhelmingly for his removal in 2011, Justice Sen resigned before the motion could be tabled in the Lok Sabha.
- This resignation preempted further proceedings and allowed him to avoid accountability.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran: Another significant instance involved Justice P.D. Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, accused of grave misconduct, including land appropriation.
- Justice Dinakaran resigned on the day the inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act convened, effectively halting the investigation.
The Impact of Resignations
- Resignations by judges facing inquiries highlight a systemic loophole in judicial accountability.
- Jurist Mohan Gopal, a member of the three-member committee investigating Justice Dinakaran, argued that allowing resignations to terminate inquiries undermines the very purpose of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
- The Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) echoed this view, emphasising that the process should continue to establish guilt or innocence, irrespective of resignation.
- The FJA noted that accountability is not just about removal from office but about restoring public confidence in the judiciary.
- In the Dinakaran case, the committee chair, Justice Aftab Alam, supported the continuation of the investigation post-resignation.
- However, the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Hamid Ansari, rejected this request, terminating the proceedings.
Way Ahead
- The challenges in holding judges accountable point to the need for reform in the existing framework.
- Allowing inquiries to conclude even after resignation would deter judges from escaping scrutiny.
- Moreover, establishing clearer disqualification criteria for judges found guilty of misconduct would reinforce public trust in the judiciary.
Judicial accountability is crucial for maintaining the integrity of India’s democracy. The system must evolve to ensure that those entrusted with upholding justice are held to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.
