Opinion | Judicial Accountability In India: A System In Need Of Urgent Reform

The Constitution of India provides two primary avenues to hold judges accountable for corruption: an in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court, and an impeachment process conducted by the Parliament. However, both mechanisms have proven to be inadequate in addressing the problem.

Legal experts argue that the lack of prosecutions and impeachments underscores the need for sweeping reforms, including revisiting Supreme Court judgments that shield judges from scrutiny and liberalising India’s stringent contempt of court laws that stifle public discourse on judicial corruption.

THE IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE: A FLAWED MECHANISM

The in-house procedure, introduced by the Supreme Court in 1999, is the first line of defence against allegations of judicial misconduct. Under this mechanism, complaints against high court judges are addressed through an informal inquiry conducted by a three-member committee comprising two high court chief justices and one judge. The process is designed to be confidential, with the accused judge given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. If the allegations are found to be serious, the judge is advised to resign. If they refuse, judicial work is withdrawn, and the Chief Justice of India may recommend impeachment.

However, the in-house procedure has been criticised for its lack of transparency and effectiveness. The Supreme Court has ruled that inquiry reports under this mechanism are confidential, citing a 2003 judgment. As a result, the public remains unaware of the number of judges who have been discriminated against, and the actions taken against them. Between 2017 and 2021, the Union Law Ministry informed the Parliament that 1,631 complaints regarding judicial corruption had been received and forwarded to the Chief Justice of India or high court chief justices. Yet, the outcomes of these complaints remain shrouded in secrecy.

The recent case of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court illustrates the limitations of the in-house procedure. Yadav faced allegations of making communal remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event held at the high court in December 2023. While the Supreme Court collegium initiated an in-house inquiry, the outcome remains unclear, and Yadav continues to serve as a judge. This lack of accountability erodes public trust in the judiciary and underscores the need for a more transparent and robust mechanism to address judicial misconduct.

THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS: A RARELY USED TOOL

The impeachment process, outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, is the second avenue to hold judges accountable. It allows the Parliament to remove a judge for “proven misbehaviour or incapacity." However, the process is fraught with political and procedural challenges. A removal motion requires the support of 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. If admitted, a three-member judicial committee investigates the allegations. If misconduct is proven, the Parliament votes on the motion, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal.

Despite its existence, the impeachment process has never resulted in the removal of a Supreme Court or high court judge. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court became the first judge to face an impeachment motion for allegedly misusing public funds. Although a judicial committee found him guilty on 11 of 14 charges, the removal motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to a lack of political will.

Similarly, in 2009, an impeachment motion against Karnataka High Court Chief Justice PD Dinakaran was passed in the Rajya Sabha, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote. In 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court also resigned before his impeachment motion could be taken up in the Lok Sabha.

The failure to impeach even a single judge highlights the political and institutional barriers to holding judges accountable. The impeachment process, while constitutionally sound, is often undermined by partisan politics and the reluctance of lawmakers to take decisive action against members of the judiciary.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: A RARE EXCEPTION

Criminal prosecution of judges for corruption is even rarer. The Supreme Court’s 1991 judgment in the K Veeraswami case established that judges are “public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but ruled that the CJI’s advice is necessary before registering a criminal case or commencing prosecution against a judge. This requirement has created a significant barrier to prosecuting judges for corruption.

There have been only a handful of instances where judges have faced criminal prosecution. In 2003, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly colluding with officials to fix a case. In 2011, Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was charged after a bribe meant for her was mistakenly delivered to another judge. In 2017, Justice SN Shukla of the Allahabad High Court faced criminal charges for allegedly accepting a bribe to fix an order. However, all these cases remain pending, and none have resulted in convictions.

THE NEED FOR SYSTEMIC REFORMS

The lack of convictions and impeachments underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms to address judicial corruption. Legal experts argue that the current mechanisms are inadequate and call for a rethinking of the options available to hold judges accountable.

Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, emphasises the need for greater transparency, such as mandatory asset declarations by judges. Currently, only about 13 per cent of high court judges have voluntarily disclosed their assets. Shubhankar Dam, a legal scholar, advocates for overturning Supreme Court judgments that shield judges from scrutiny, including the 1991 Veeraswami judgment and the 1995 ruling that broadened the constitutional prohibition on discussing judges’ conduct.

Dam also highlights the need for operational independence for investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to shield them from accusations of executive interference. However, he acknowledges that governments are unlikely to initiate reforms, as they benefit from the status quo. “It is beneficial for governments not to investigate corruption allegations within the judiciary," he said. “They can use them to control judges."

CONCLUSION

The allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma are a stark reminder of the challenges India faces in addressing judicial corruption. The existing mechanisms—the in-house procedure and the impeachment process—have proven to be ineffective in holding judges accountable. The lack of transparency, political will, and operational independence for investigative agencies has created a system that is ill-equipped to tackle corruption within the judiciary.

To restore public trust in the judiciary, India must undertake sweeping reforms. These include mandatory asset declarations, overturning judgments that shield judges from scrutiny, and empowering investigative agencies to act independently. Without such reforms, the judiciary risks losing its credibility, and the rule of law in India will remain compromised. The time for action is now.

The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author. He pens national, geopolitical, and social issues. His social media handle is @prosenjitnth. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.