Context:
The Supreme Court recently expressed significant concerns regarding statements made by a judge from the Karnataka High Court. The intervention was later withdrawn following an apology from the judge in question. This incident has brought to light the constitutional challenges and limitations that the judiciary faces in disciplining its members, underscoring the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Disciplining Judges in India
- Additional Mechanisms for Disciplining Judges
- Measures to Ensure Discipline among Judges
Disciplining Judges in India
- Article 121 of the Constitution: Restricts parliamentary discussions on the conduct of judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts unless a formal motion for their removal is introduced.
- Article 211 of the Constitution: Prevents state legislatures from discussing the conduct of judges from the Supreme Court or High Courts while they are performing their duties.
- Article 124(4) of the Constitution: Specifies that a motion for impeachment must be supported by a majority of the total membership and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in both Houses of Parliament.
- High Threshold for Impeachment: The strict requirements for impeachment make it challenging to remove judges for minor offenses, which creates difficulties in addressing misconduct that does not meet the impeachment threshold.
- Rare Use of Impeachment: Impeachment proceedings have been initiated only five times in India’s history, and no Supreme Court judge has been impeached.
- Grounds for Removal: Removal is possible only for “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity,” which is defined by a high standard, including issues such as corruption, lack of integrity, and moral misconduct.
- Misconduct Below Impeachment Standard: Numerous acts of judicial misconduct, like bias or indiscipline, do not meet the impeachment criteria, leaving limited avenues to address such issues.
Additional Mechanisms for Disciplining Judges
- Judicial Action by the Supreme Court (SC): The SC has the authority to take action in disciplining judges. For example, in 2017, the SC found Calcutta High Court’s C.S. Karnan guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment.
- Collegium System: The Supreme Court Collegium, composed of the five senior-most judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), can recommend transferring High Court judges as a disciplinary measure. Although the Collegium’s decisions are not transparent, the transfer mechanism is sometimes used to address misconduct.
- Example: Justice P.D. Dinakaran was transferred from the Karnataka High Court to the Sikkim High Court when his impeachment was pending.
- In-House Inquiry Procedure (1999): The CJI can initiate an internal inquiry by requesting comments from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and obtaining a response from the implicated judge. If needed, a three-member committee of two High Court Chief Justices and one judge may conduct a fact-finding inquiry.
- Resignation or Retirement: The committee can advise the concerned judge to either resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge refuses, the CJI can recommend that no judicial work be assigned to the judge.
- Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997): A judicial code adopted by the Supreme Court, consisting of 16 points, serves as ethical guidelines for ensuring an independent and fair judiciary. It helps maintain discipline among judges.
Measures to Ensure Discipline among Judges
- Reviving Key Legislation:
- Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010: Revive and pass this bill to establish the National Judicial Oversight Committee, a Complaints Scrutiny Panel, and an investigation committee to ensure proper oversight of judicial conduct.
- National Judicial Council (NJC): The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 should be revived to establish the NJC, which would oversee investigations into allegations of misconduct or incapacity among judges.
- Code of Conduct for Judges:
- A Code of Conduct should be developed, clearly outlining the expected behaviour, ethical standards, and mechanisms for addressing violations. The code should be publicly accessible to promote transparency and accountability.
- Performance Evaluation System:
- Implement a system to evaluate judicial performance based on key metrics such as case disposal rates, adherence to ethical standards, and feedback from litigants and peers.
- For example, in Odisha, judicial officers are expected to meet a work output equivalent to 240 working days annually.
- Judicial Independence:
- Reforms must ensure that accountability measures do not undermine the independence of the judiciary. Any system for holding judges accountable should preserve their ability to make impartial decisions.
- Asset and Liability Declarations:
- Judges should be required to declare their assets and liabilities, and this information should be made publicly available to deter corruption and enhance public trust in the judiciary.
- Training Programs:
- Regular training programs and workshops on judicial ethics, anti-discrimination laws, and the importance of impartiality should be instituted to foster a culture of accountability among judges.
-Source: The Hindu
