The Hindu: Published on 30th Dec 2024:
Why in News?
A speech by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, expressing biases against the Muslim community, has reignited debates about the inefficiency of India’s judicial accountability mechanisms.
Current Story?
Event: Justice Yadav's controversial remarks during an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad highlight concerns about bias and misconduct in the judiciary.
Mechanism for Accountability: Impeachment requires proving “misbehaviour or incapacity” through a committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This process is triggered only after parliamentary approval in either House, making it an arduous task.
Outcome: The mechanism's complexity often results in no substantive action against erring judges, maintaining their immunity and benefits post-retirement.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
Establishes a procedure for investigating judicial misconduct through a three-member committee comprising:
- A Supreme Court judge,
- A Chief Justice of a High Court,
- An eminent jurist.
Requires parliamentary approval of the committee's findings for impeachment, per Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution.
Critics argue that this law grants undue protection to judges and hinders effective accountability.
Justice V. Ramaswami’s Trial:
Background: Justice Ramaswami was accused of misusing public funds for personal luxuries.
Outcome:
Found guilty by the inquiry committee.
Impeachment motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to abstentions by Congress MPs, despite no votes against the motion.
Continued to hold office without any cases allocated until his retirement, highlighting the judiciary's insulation from effective accountability.
Post-retirement, he chaired the Tamil Nadu Law Commission, further questioning the system's integrity.
Resignation Before Accountability:
Justice Soumitra Sen:
Found guilty of financial misappropriation as a lawyer.
Resigned before the impeachment motion could proceed in the Lok Sabha.
Justice P.D. Dinakaran:
Faced 16 charges, including land appropriation.
Resigned before the three-member committee could proceed, aborting the trial.
Impact:
Resignations preclude further investigations, allowing judges to retain post-retirement perks and privileges.
The Need to Complete Proceedings:
Issues Raised:
Judges can escape accountability by resigning, effectively nullifying investigations.
The dual process of inquiry and impeachment should ensure transparency and justice, irrespective of a judge’s resignation.
Recommendation:
Former committee members advocated continuing inquiries post-resignation to ensure findings of guilt can affect future appointments and accountability frameworks.
These suggestions, however, were rejected by the parliamentary leadership, raising concerns over the judiciary's insulation from scrutiny.
Conclusion:
The accountability mechanisms for India’s higher judiciary remain inefficient due to complex processes and systemic loopholes.
Resignations by judges under scrutiny reveal gaps that undermine public trust in the judiciary.
Reforms are essential to:
- Ensure inquiries are completed irrespective of resignations.
- Streamline impeachment procedures for swifter outcomes.
- Reinforce public confidence in judicial impartiality and integrity.
