Context – Recent controversy: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s controversial speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event has brought attention to issues of judicial accountability.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity )
Judicial review mechanism:
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets the process for holding judges accountable for misbehavior or incapacity.
- A committee, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist, investigates the issue only after a successful impeachment motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Impeachment process:
- For a judge to be removed, a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament is required.
- Despite this, the process has seen limited success in holding judges accountable.
Past cases:
- Justice V. Ramaswami: Found guilty of extravagantspending on his official residence but remained in office until retirement due to the failure of impeachment in the Lok Sabha.
- Justice Soumitra Sen: Found guilty of misappropriating funds but resigned just before the impeachment motion was to be introduced.
Resignation loophole:
- Judges can resign before impeachment, thereby preventingaccountability and avoiding the consequences of the investigation.
- This immunity is seen as disproportionate compared to elected officials, who cannot evade accountability by resigning.
Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) stance:
- Advocates for the continuationofinvestigations even if a judge resigns.
- Argues that investigations are crucial for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
Institutional challenges:
- Despite calls for reform, the Rajya Sabha Chairperson, Hamid Ansari, rejected the continuation of investigations after a judge’s resignation, highlighting the difficulties in reforming judicial accountability mechanisms in India.
