Judicial Accountability and Independence of the Judiciary – A Critical Analysis
Judicial accountability is that judges are solely responsible for the choices they make. Accountability is established more easily when decision-making procedures are transparent. Every public organization must answer to the people for the choices it makes and the tasks it completes. Accountability means taking ownership of your decisions and actions in its most basic form. In general, it refers to having accountability to any external entity. Others contend, however, that responsibility should lie with one’s principles or oneself instead of with an organization that can censure or punish.
Since Article 235 1If the Constitution lists accountability as one of the aspects of independence, it is a necessary provision. The “control” the Highest court of appeal in the state has on the judges of the lower courts is evidence of how well the system for enforcing accountability is working. Because the Court of Appeal is not beholden to the government or the legislature, providing it jurisdiction over the lesser courts maintains its independence. There is no framework for the higher courts because the constitution’s founders considered a component of saving in the most severe cases, and “settled norms” and “peer pressure” might serve as insufficient checks.
Rightfully stating that “A single dishonest judge not only dishonors himself and disgraces his office but also jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system,” the Hon. Supreme Court. It begs the issue of why we want accountability. During its campaign, “the People’s Convention on Judicial Accountability and Reforms” claimed that “the country’s judicial system has transformed from being an instrument of harassment of the common people of the country away from being an instrument for protecting the rights of the weak and the oppressed.”The obligations and tasks performed by the public body or organization determine the level of responsibility.
When examined closely, the independence of the judiciary and accountability of the judiciary clash. However, having both is essential for the country’s legal system. Increased judicial accountability is justified by balancing independence and responsibility, supporting the rule of law, and prioritizing the law over all others. More judicial accountability is necessary to guarantee that judges conduct impartial and fair hearings. This is comparable to judicial independence, which encourages fair and transparent hearings but does not benefit the judges as has been perceived in numerous situations.
Examination of judicial independence by looking at it from a normative perspective.
It has been observed that the judiciaries in countries like India, where democracy is the standpoint of the nation’s conduct, the misconduct of the same has never been hidden from the eyes of the public perspective. Whether it is about the three brackets in a democratic country, i.e., the Legislative, Executive, or Judiciary, or about the influence of Politicians, every aspect has been alleged to be in the debt of misconduct.2, corruption3 Or power dominance that has not just caused conflict of Interest but has led to delay in the disposition of critical and sensitive issues, be it the cases4 Under the periphery of the Judiciary.
Indian Judiciary, in recent years, has come under severe examination, majorly due to two reasons, as per the scholars, i.e., firstly, there has been a decline in judicial independence in the contemporary world. Secondly, the court has been seen allegedly taking bribes, corrupt and not being accountable for its purpose, and further lacking transparency.5. Judges have occasionally been referred to as “enemies of the people.”6 Be it India or a Western country like the UK. Not to be surprised, it has also been observed that judges are charged for conducting excessive reviews and interfering in politics in the UK. However, suppose the regulatory architecture is built and operated with judicial independence and accountability in mind. In that case, regulatory regimes can satisfy accountability objectives even though they cannot entirely address these claims.
Judicial independence: What It is and What it Covers
It is widely believed that independence in the judicial system is a principle that should be respected and supported.7. It refers to the legal independence provided to the judicial professionals, requiring the State to give enough systems for protection and resources to maintain this independence.8. Experts emphasize that there are three crucial components of judicial independence: institutional, Internal, and Individual, with individual and institutional aspects being the primary focus in both international and domestic laws. Another way around a political principle known as “independent judiciary” is to guarantee that the judiciary interprets laws and constitutions free from interference from the government or partisan interests.
This could be further understood concerning the case of United States v/s Nixon (1974)9, where The Watergate Trial Tapes were to be turned on, according to President Richard Nixon, after an overwhelming recommendation was made against him. This ruling reinforced the principle of the principle of law. It reminded everyone, even the US President, is accountable to the law.
The Allahabad High Court later confirmed it in the said verdict of State of U.P v/s Raj Narain & Ors (1975)10 That then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was guilty of electoral malpractices carried over by her and her party at the time of the election operations, resulting in her being ordered to annul the election.
While the UK and India use judicial supremacy to assure independence, with India maintaining a strong democratic ethos, the USA adopts separation of powers to establish an independent judiciary. The precondition for ensuring the strong democratic spirit of any country is an independent judiciary.
The Indian assertive judiciary’s independence from outside influence
In light of the threats it faces from outside forces and strong organizations, this research looks at the qualities, necessity, and unpredictability of an independent judiciary in India, the most significant democracy in the entire world. The principle of independence given to the Judicial body is upheld by the Indian constitution, which is bolstered by several post-independence provisions that ensure the judiciary’s geographical integrity.
Tenure of judges
It establishes the prerequisites for selecting a judge for the Higher Court in conformity with Article 21711 Of the Indian Constitution. After being appointed, higher court and SC justices are permitted to remain in their positions until they are 65 and 62 years old. However, this is subject to change due to certain unforeseen circumstances and conditions, which include impeachment, death, etc.
The Constitution (114th Amendment) Bill, 201012, however, suggested raising the High Court judges’ age for retirement to 65. But it failed to pass. Similarly Art 124 (2)13 It lays down that the President should choose each Supreme Court justice, and they would serve until they turned 65. The Second Judges Case (1993), also known as the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India14 The case was held that the President must obtain the consent of the Chief Justice of India before appointing judges to the High Court and Supreme Court. This case was overruled in the case of SP Gupta v/s Union of India.15 by a 7:2 margin. A PIL writ petition signed by a lawyer for the party in question was used to bring the issue before the court. To appoint judges to vacancies, the executive, according to the petitioner, cannot fill the position in the higher judiciary on time and without violating the ability to select judges who meet the highest standards.
Salaries and Allowances to the Judicial Heads
Judges’ compensation is covered in Art 12516 Of the Constitution of India. The Second Schedule contains some compensation information, and the Parliament may legally change it. India’s conglomerate fund covers Supreme Court judges’ salaries, while each state’s collective fund covers High Court judges’ salaries.
An Authoritative Power of Supreme Court Jurisdiction
With the references to Art 3217, a human being may apply to the Supreme Court of India to obtain adequate justice because it has the authority to issue writs. The Parliament cannot limit the Supreme Court’s rule, even though it can alter the financial jurisdiction in civil cases. In Article 21118The Constitution forbids debate in a State’s legislature regarding the judicial actions of a Higher Court or the SC.
Challenges of Judicial Independence in India
The bench must overcome fundamental issues to protect its independence from political influences and problems like retaining independence and avoiding politicization. The challenges that the Independent Judiciary faces are as follows:-
a) Possibility of biases in the structural conduct- The proverb Nemo Judex In Causa Sua states that judges must be fair and impartial. Three different sorts of judge biases, nevertheless, can have an impact on court proceedings.
– Personal biases are created due to the relationship extensions that grow between parties, which tend to prioritize one party over another. In the given situation it is witnessed in the case of Nanjundappa (B.N) v/s State of Mysore (1964)19The Karnataka High Court declared that when appealing for a case on the grounds of personal biases, it is of utmost necessity to prove the defense side most effectively.
– About the case of M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors.20, the court invalidated the order in question and tasked a different judge to hear the appeal.
b) Political parties: influential entity – For personal and political gain, political parties frequently defame and denigrate the Indian judicial system. In West Bengal, members of the ruling parties demonstrated against a judge’s decision, prohibiting plaintiffs from visiting courtrooms if their interests are unmet.
c) Difficulties with security while performing judicial duties- Judges are people who care about the security of their families and frequently experience threats due to their judicial responsibilities. Judges were assassinated in broad sight for rendering unfavorable decisions in 1989 and 2021. The Supreme Court took action and sentenced those responsible to life in prison, prompting questions about the security of justices while they execute their duties.
Assessing judicial accountability by approaching it from an empirical standpoint. Meaning and Scope of Judicial Accountability
Judicial accountability is when judges take responsibility for their actions and maintain openness in decision-making. Public bodies must account for the public’s actions and choices. The court is not held to the same accountability standards as the executive or legislative branches because it is autonomous.
The rules for the examination have been established. Modification and the appeals process provide judicial accountability. The removal of higher qualified justices is governed by the requirements of Articles 124(2) and (4), whilst the dismissal of Higher Court judges is governed by Art 217.
Two-thirds of the members of Parliament must vote in favor to begin impeachment proceedings. Due to political, social, and economic challenges, the impeachment of just one Supreme Court justice was unsuccessful. This shows how much more robust judicial accountability is required. Judges have freedom but cannot abuse it to hurt the interests of the public. If corrupt actions occur, they must be looked into to stop and limit them.
To control the investigation process and find evidence of incapacity and misconduct committed on behalf of the bench under the Supreme Court and High Court, which must be presented in front of the Houses of Parliament while they vote, The 1968 Constitution of Judges (Inquiry) Act’s Article 124(5) went into effect. But it’s vital to remember that there are a few issues with how this Article is being implemented.
Objectives: Judicial Accountability
While judicial accountability fosters institutional responsibility, public confidence, and the rule of law, judicial independence supports power separation, due process, and the protection of the law. It deters conduct that compromises independence, integrity, and impartiality and reassures the public about proper judiciary functioning.21.
Genera: Accountability of the Judiciary
Accountability of the judiciary and taxonomy can be broken down into institutional, behavioral, and decisional responsibility. It seeks to discern between valuable and detrimental types of responsibility. Judges’ decisions are subject to decisional, behavioral, and institutional accountability, focusing on their behavior as a group and individual government branch.
Institutional Accountability
Judicial performance as an independent part of government is subject to institutional accountability, which refers to the obligation of judges to uphold that standard. It entails budgetary accountability, in which the federal government and state legislatures manage spending plans and set salaries.22, and operations accountability, in which the federal government controls the judiciary’s overall operations and the courts’ size, makeup, practice, and jurisdiction.
Institutional transparency and accountability are closely related because they enable the judiciary to serve the public as a distinct branch of the government. However, it is restricted to actions meant to enhance the administration of the judiciary. Decisional accountability systems control judicial decision-making on particular topics. Institutional accountability has
limitations because federal systems have broad legislative power restrictions, whereas states frequently establish separate judiciaries with self-administration powers.
Behavioral Accountability
A legal theory known as behavioral accountability holds judges responsible for behavior that can jeopardize their independence, impartiality, or integrity. The two types of accountability are judicial and extrajudicial. Holding judges accountable for their official conduct, such as ex parte communications, racial bias, or public positions, is a key component of the legal aspect. The extrajudicial component focuses on behavior a judge’s ability while off the bench ability to serve in that capacity, such as accepting gifts or participating in political, professional, civic, or charitable endeavors.
Decisional Accountability
Judges are held responsible for their judgments through decisional accountability, which aims to deter and correct judicial error. It tackles purposeful and involuntary mistakes; intentional mistakes frequently result from monetary gain, favoritism, hunger for power, and bias. There are, however, some exceptions, such as in the late 990s case of the Court of California of Appeals Judge Anthony Kline.23, who disregarded the state Supreme Court’s controlling precedent by arguing that the only occasion for the Supreme Court to respond to a request for reconsideration of a decision rejecting the precedent24.
Requirements V/S Challenges in the Peripheral of Judicial Accountability
India’s democratic constitution ensures social, political, and economic justice, with informed consent and accountability of authority figures, including judges as representatives of law bound individuals.
Recent events in India have brought to light the public’s anger and discontent with the legal system, underscoring the necessity for the judiciary to be held responsible for developing negative values. The idea of judicial accountability is prevalent worldwide and through the well-known judges who promote morality and ethics in legality.
In the judiciary system, a judge is said to avoid too much socializing, in terms of avoiding too much networking, which interferes with the judge’s ability to act freely for social reasons, which increases the judge’s susceptibility to influence.
However, in the case of Ram Pratap Sharma v. Dayanand25The Supreme Court stressed the significance of judges declining invitations from business, political, or commercial entities to prevent influencing them. The collegium structure, consisting of all senior Supreme Court judges, is criticized for prejudice and lack of openness. Because judges can only be removed under this system through an impeachment that needs to have the backing of a majority in both Houses of Parliament, India has tremendous, unrestrained power.
Increased demand for enhanced judicial accountability due to media coverage of evidence backed complaints against judges, requiring strong judge organizations to enable independent verdict delivery while maintaining control.
Judicial accountability, a prerequisite for effective government, follows from judicial independence. Judges’ impartiality, the top court’s sway over lesser courts, the difficulties associated with impeachment, and the impact of politics on the legal system are all obstacles. The Indian Constitution grants the High Court control over lower courts, but this creates difficulties in establishing accountability and protecting the independence of the judiciary.
Urge for Stronger and More Efficient Judicial Accountability
Indeed, looking at the condition and the pendency of cases under the Indian Judiciary, there is an urgent urge for more potent and more efficient Judicial Accountability. India’s democratic society is rapidly changing, with increasing public demand for education and increased public participation. Accountability among public officials and institutions, including the judiciary, is essential to ensure a welfare state. However, there is no remedy for regulating misbehavior among judges, and there is no provision in the Indian Constitution to charge judges for their misbehavior during court proceedings. Constitutional legitimacy is crucial for the judiciary’s decisions and laws, and stronger judicial accountability is required to ensure fairness and clarity.
To maintain fair justice, it is necessary to hold judges accountable for the reserving of seats for weaker, depressed groups due to their personal backgrounds and political affiliations, which can be detrimental to the judiciary. The Supreme Court currently has 31 judges, but only a few judgments have changed the existing framework. Efficiency in the judiciary is needed to prevent loopholes and deficiencies.
Transparency is also necessary for the judiciary to deliver justice to the ordinary citizens. The Constitution of India does not have such a clause to review Supreme Court decisions, and the judiciary must prioritize security, accountability, and transparency. In the 21st century, justice must include honesty, fairness, and responsibility from the judiciary.
The Reasoning By Elimination
The Balance: Judicial Independence & Judicial Accountability
Delivering justice to the ordinary people of a country effectively depends on judicial independence and accountability. Both ideas are founded on the rule of law and support unbiased and fair hearings for judges. However, rather than being mutually exclusive, they should be seen as complementary. By guaranteeing judicial courage and integrity, both ideas seek to improve the effectiveness of the legal structure or framework. Territorial needs and the efficiency of the current judges should be considered when balancing these ideas; to give citizens impartial justice, judicial accountability, and independence should be regulated jointly rather than in competition. Stronger judicial accountability can be introduced to the country by balancing these ideas.
Such an ideology could be highlighted with the following case analysis In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others26 A judgment where problems with judicial accountability are caused by restricting the investigation of civil or criminal charges without the Chief Justice’s assent. Due to this ruling, the concept of judicial accountability was eliminated, and the fairness of the legal system was compromised.
In the verdict of Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India & Ors27 Demonstrated that the judiciary has flaws and requires strong judicial accountability. Despite being accused of squandering court funds, Justice Ramaswamy was not removed from office due to a party’s abstention. Strong judicial accountability ensures the proper and equitable administration of justice and the dependability and credibility of the judiciary’s decision-making process.
1INDIA CONST. art, 235
2Jeffrey Gettleman, ‘India’s Chief Justice Is Accused of Sexual Harassment’ The New York Times (New York, 20 April 2019).
3 The Invisible Lawyer, ‘Notice of Motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Mr Justice Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India, under Article 217 read with 124(4) of the Constitution of India, 14, para [11] .
4 K Shankar, ‘Why Justice is delayed’ The Hindu (Chennai, 2 February 2020).
5 Anjana Prakash, ‘The Gogoi Case and After: For the Sake of Justice, India’s Judiciary Needs Urgent Reform’ The Wire (New Delhi, 4 June 2019)
6 James Slack, ‘Enemies of the people: Fury over “out of touch” judges who have “declared war on democracy” by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis’ Daily Mail (Essex, 4 November 2016).
7 PETER H. RUSSELL, Toward a General Theory of Judicial Independence, in JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE AGE OF DEMOCRACY I (Peter H. Russell & David M. O’Brien eds., 2001). 8Swart defines judicial independence as ‘…the ability of individual judges and the judiciary as a whole to perform their duties free of influence or control by other actors’: Mia Swart, ‘Independence of the Judiciary, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (1 March 2019).
9 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
10 State of U.P v/s Raj Narain & Ors 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
11 INDIA CONST. art, 217, cl. 1 § 3.
12 The Constitution 114th Amendment Act, 2010, No. 10, Act of Parliament, 2010 (India) 13 INDIA CONST. art, 124, cl.2.
14 Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, WPC 1303 of 1987 15 SP Gupta v/s Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
16 INDIA CONST. art, 125, cl.2.
17 INDIA CONST. art, 32.
18 INDIA CONST. art, 211.
19 Nanjundappa (B.N) v/s State of Mysore (1964), ILLJ 260 Kant
20 M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors,
21 1 Id. at 14; see also Calvin R. Massey, Rule of Law and the Age of Aquarius, 41 HASTINGS L.J. 757, 760 (1990) (book review) (quoting Geoffrey de Q. Walker for the proposition that “[a]n independent judiciary is an indispensable requirement of the rule of law”)
22 JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY, supra note 7, at 85 (discussing the twenty states with judicial salary commissions, nine of which have the authority to issue binding salary determinations absent formal legislative branch disapproval).
23 See 28 U.S.C. § 453 (codifying the judicial oath).
24 For a discussion of the case and its background, see Sambhav N. Sankar, Comment, Disciplining the Professional Judge, 88 CAL. L. REV. 1233, 1233-35 (2000).
25 Ram Pratap Sharma v. Dayanand,1977 AIR 809.
26 K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others, 1991 SCC (3) 655.
27 Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India & Ors, WPC 514 of 1992.
