Need to Ensure Judicial Accountability | Gist of Rajya Sabha TV / RSTV (now Sansad TV) - UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

The controversy surrounding the alleged recovery of large sums of cash at the residence of a Delhi High Court judge has reignited discussions on the need for judicial reforms, transparency, and accountability within the Indian judiciary.

What is the Collegium System?

The Collegium System is the method by which judges in India are appointed and transferred. This system has evolved over time through various Supreme Court judgments and is not based on any law passed by Parliament or a specific provision in the Constitution.

Evolution of the Collegium System

First Judges Case (1981)

• In the First Judges Case, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has a primary role in recommending judicial appointments and transfers, this recommendation could be rejected for valid reasons.
• This ruling shifted the balance of power, giving the Executive more influence over judicial appointments for the next 12 years.

Second Judges Case (1993)

• The Second Judges Case marked a significant change as the Supreme Court introduced the Collegium system.
• The Court clarified that "consultation" meant "concurrence," indicating that the CJI's recommendation should be an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

Third Judges Case (1998)

• In the Third Judges Case, the Supreme Court responded to the President's reference under Article 143 and expanded the Collegium to a five-member body.
• This expanded Collegium includes the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues, further institutionalizing the process of judicial appointments.

Note

• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act in 2014. The NJAC aimed to replace the Collegium system for judicial appointments.
• However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down both the NJAC and the NJAC Act, citing concerns about executive interference and the violation of judicial independence.

Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Accountability in India

• Lack of Transparency in Judicial Functioning: The judiciary in India operates with a significant lack of transparency, especially regarding appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions. Unlike the legislature and executive, the judicial process is not subject to public scrutiny, making it difficult to hold the judiciary accountable.
• Absence of a Robust Institutional Framework for Accountability: Allegations of judicial misconduct are currently handled internally by the judiciary through in-house inquiries, which lack transparency and public accountability. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 allows for the impeachment of judges for proven misbehavior, but this process is cumbersome, rare, and ineffective in most cases. Impeachment requires a special majority in Parliament, making it a politically sensitive and challenging process.
• Nepotism in the Collegium System: The collegium system has been criticized for leading to appointments based on personal connections rather than merit. There are instances where relatives and close associates of judges are preferred for positions, undermining the principles of accountability and transparency. Despite adverse intelligence reports, the recommendations of the collegium are binding on the President, further complicating accountability.
• Judicial Misconduct and Ethical Concerns: There is currently no binding or enforceable code of conduct for judges in India, except for the advisory 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life' adopted in 1997. This Restatement serves as a guideline for maintaining an independent and fair judiciary but lacks the force of law.

Way Forward

• Institutional Mechanism for Accountability: Establish an independent statutory body to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct, corruption, or ethical violations, ensuring judicial independence is not compromised.
• Reforming the Collegium System: Enhance transparency in judicial appointments and transfers by setting clear eligibility criteria, documenting reasons for selections, and making the process more open to public scrutiny.
• Code of Conduct for Judges: Develop and enforce a binding Code of Conduct for judges, requiring regular declarations of assets and liabilities to uphold ethical standards and integrity in judicial conduct.
• Time-Bound Inquiry Mechanism: Implement a time-bound process for investigating complaints against judges to prevent delays or cases being dropped due to resignation or other tactics.
• Greater Transparency in Judicial Functioning: Foster transparency in court proceedings, appointment processes, and disciplinary actions by making relevant information publicly accessible through regular reports and disclosures. 
• Strengthening Impeachment Process: Review and streamline the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to make the impeachment procedure more effective, transparent, and accessible for cases of proven misconduct.