Editorial 2 : Shining a Light on the Court
Context: Judicial Accountability and Transparency in India
Introduction: Public declaration of assets by 21 Supreme Court judges, spearheaded by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, aims to enhance transparency. It follows allegations of corruption related to the case of unaccounted cash found at a Delhi High Court judge’s residence.
Historical Precedent: A 2009 Supreme Court resolution endorsed voluntary asset declarations, but the portal for disclosures remained inactive. Recent declarations revive this practice but remain non-mandatory.
Existing Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability
- Legal Protections for Judges
- Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850: It shields judges from civil trials for actions taken in judicial capacity if done in good faith.
- Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Bars civil and criminal proceedings against judges for actions related to judicial duties.
- Exception: Actions against judges as individuals (unrelated to judicial roles) are permissible.
- Constitutional Provisions
- Articles 124 and 218: Govern the removal of judges for proven misconduct or incapacity through impeachment.
- Removal of SC and HC judge requires a special majority in Parliament.
- Internal committees (led by CJI or HC Chief Justice) handle inquiries, but outcomes are not publicly disclosed.
- Judicial Precedents
- K Veeraswamy Case (1991): Mandates CJI consultation before investigating SC and HC judges.
- 2019 SC Order: Reiterated judges as public servants under RTI, but ambiguity persists on applicability of the Lokpal Act.
Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Accountability
- High Threshold for Impeachment: Complex parliamentary process discourages accountability.
- Opacity in Internal Processes:
- Committee findings and punitive actions (e.g. transfers, resignations) are not made public.
- Genuine corruption cases often go unaddressed due to procedural barriers.
- Voluntary Disclosures: Asset declaration remains non-binding, reducing its impact.
- Legal Ambiguities: Lack of clarity on trying judges under anti-corruption laws like the Lokpal Act.
Way Forward: Recommendations
- Mandatory Asset Disclosures: Enforce compulsory, periodic declarations with public accessibility.
- Reform Impeachment Process: Lower procedural barriers while safeguarding judicial independence.
- Transparency in Internal Committees: Publish inquiry outcomes to build public trust.
- Legal Clarity: Define applicability of Lokpal Act and RTI to judges.
- Independent Oversight Body: Create a statutory institution (e.g. Judicial Complaints Commission) to investigate misconduct.
Conclusion: Asset declarations are symbolic but insufficient for comprehensive accountability. Structural reforms are needed to balance judicial independence with public accountability. India’s judiciary must adopt global best practices while addressing domestic challenges to restore credibility.