Opinion | Judicial Accountability In India: A System In Need Of Urgent Reform
Recent news reports alleging that unaccounted cash was found at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma have once again brought the issue of judicial accountability into sharp focus. While the allegations remain unproven, they have reignited a long-standing debate about how India’s judiciary deals with corruption within its ranks.
Despite the gravity of such accusations, no Supreme Court or High Court judge in India has ever been impeached or convicted for corruption. This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms to address judicial misconduct and the need for systemic reforms to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
The Constitution of India provides two primary avenues to hold judges accountable for corruption: an in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court, and an impeachment process conducted by the Parliament. However, both mechanisms have proven to be inadequate in addressing the problem.
Legal experts argue that the lack of prosecutions and impeachments underscores the need for sweeping reforms, including revisiting Supreme Court judgments that shield judges from scrutiny and liberalising India’s stringent contempt of court laws that stifle public discourse on judicial corruption.
The in-house procedure, introduced by the Supreme Court in 1999, is the first line of defence against allegations of judicial misconduct. Under this mechanism, complaints against high court judges are addressed through an informal inquiry conducted by a three-member committee comprising two high court chief justices and one judge. The process is designed to be confidential, with the accused judge given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. If the allegations are found to be serious, the judge is advised to resign. If they refuse, judicial work is withdrawn, and the Chief Justice of India may recommend impeachment.
However, the in-house procedure has been criticised for its lack of transparency and effectiveness. The Supreme Court has ruled........
© News18
