Strengthening Judicial Accountability in India

• 09 Jun 2025

This editorial is based on “Impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma in Monsoon session” which was published in Times of India on 05/06/2025. The article brings into picture the rare impeachment move against an Allahabad High Court judge, highlighting the gaps in practical judicial accountability. 

For Prelims:  Indian Judiciary, Separation Of Powers, Supreme Court, High Courts, Judicial Review, Collegium System, Judicial overreach,  Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Supreme Court’s Recent intervention in setting specific timelines for the President to act on Bills (Reserved by Governer)

For Mains: Current Mechanism for Judicial Accountability in India, Key Factors Underscoring the Growing Imperative for Judicial Accountability in India. 

The Union government's impending impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge, following allegations of financial misconduct, brings judicial accountability into sharp focus. While India's Constitution provides mechanisms for judicial oversight, the rarity of such proceedings—this being potentially the first High Court judge impeachment—raises questions about their practical implementation. The judiciary, as one of the three pillars of democratic governance, must be subject to the same rigorous standards of accountability as the executive and legislative branches. The current case thus offers an opportunity to examine how effectively India's existing judicial accountability systems function in practice. 

What is the Current Mechanism for Judicial Accountability in India?  

• Impeachment Process: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the impeachment process for removing Supreme Court and High Court judges. 
  • A motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members and then investigated by a three-member committee of judges and jurists.  
  • If found guilty, it must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.  
• In-House Mechanism: The Supreme Court's in-house procedure was established to handle complaints against judges, primarily for misconduct.  
  • Complaints are reviewed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the respective High Court CJI.  
  • If the complaint is found credible, an internal committee investigates it. While this mechanism is seen as a safeguard, it lacks statutory backing and transparency, which often raises concerns over its effectiveness. 
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 (Lapsed): This bill sought to introduce an external oversight body, the National Judicial Oversight Committee, along with other bodies for complaints and investigations. 
  • It was passed by the Lok Sabha but lapsed in the Rajya Sabha, leaving judicial accountability largely unaddressed through formal legislative channels. 
• Judicial Review and Public Scrutiny: The judiciary is subject to judicial review by higher courts, but there is no independent external body or comprehensive statutory framework to oversee judicial conduct.  
  • Allegations against judges often lead to internal investigations or resignation, but such actions are not always transparent or publicly disclosed. 

What are the Key Factors Underscoring the Growing Imperative for Judicial Accountability in India? 

• Lack of Robust Accountability Mechanisms in Judiciary: The existing frameworks for judicial accountability, such as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, are cumbersome and ineffective. 
  •  Despite its importance, impeachment motions for judicial misconduct have not been successful, leading to public distrust in the judiciary’s ability to self-regulate. 
  • For instance, no judge has been impeached since 1993, despite several allegations 
• Judicial Independence vs. Judicial Accountability: The balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability remains a core issue.  
  • Critics argue that too much autonomy leads to a lack of external scrutiny, fostering a culture of impunity. 
    • Judicial independence has become a shield against accountability, undermining public trust in the system. 
  • The issue over Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, accused of corruption, and the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure for judicial discipline, reflects the lack of external checks despite serious charges. 
• Opacities in the Judicial Appointment Process: The lack of transparency in the judicial appointment process under the collegium system contributes to concerns over judicial accountability.  
  • Critics argue that this opacity not only breeds nepotism but also prevents scrutiny of judicial performance. 
  • Furthermore, the absence of prescribed norms regarding eligibility criteria and selection procedures further contributes to the perception of a closed-door affair. 
• Inadequate External Oversight Mechanisms: The absence of a statutory, independent body to oversee judicial conduct exacerbates accountability issues. 
  • While the judiciary relies on internal mechanisms, they are often perceived as inadequate due to lack of transparency and public involvement. 
  • The judicial reforms bill of 2010, which proposed a National Judicial Oversight Committee, lapsed in 2014, leaving judicial oversight to self-regulation, which has often been opaque and ineffective. 
• Challenges of Judicial Activism and Overreach: Judicial activism has led to the judiciary stepping into domains traditionally reserved for the executive and legislature. 
  • While this is seen as necessary in some cases, it raises concerns about the accountability of unelected judges making policy decisions. 
  • The Supreme Court’s recent intervention in setting specific timelines for the President to act on Bills reserved for their consideration by a Governor, have been criticized as an encroachment on executive functions, raising questions about judicial accountability. 
• Global Shift Towards Judicial Transparency: Globally, there has been a growing trend towards judicial transparency and accountability, with many nations introducing external oversight mechanisms.  
  • Countries like the UK and the US have established independent judicial oversight bodies. 
    • India’s failure to implement such reforms contrasts with global standards, making the system more vulnerable to criticisms of opacity. 

What are the Potential Risks Associated with Enforcing Judicial Accountability? 

• Threat to Judicial Independence: Enforcing strict judicial accountability risks undermining the principle of judicial independence, a cornerstone of the Constitution.  
  • If accountability mechanisms are overly stringent or politicized, they could become tools for executive or legislative overreach, compromising impartial decision-making. 
  • The Lokpal’s recent ruling suggested that judges might come under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal (which is an anti-corruption body established to address complaints of corruption against public officials).  
    • This proposal raised concerns about infringing on judicial independence. The Supreme Court, however, stayed the decision to ensure the protection of the judiciary's autonomy. 
• Political Interference in Judiciary:  The impeachment process and other accountability measures are often heavily influenced by political dynamics, posing the risk of political interference in the judiciary’s functioning.  
  • If used for partisan purposes, such measures could be manipulated to target judges who make decisions unfavorable to the ruling government. 
  • For instance, the impeachment motion against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 failed primarily due to political abstentions in the Lok Sabha, showcasing how political considerations can influence judicial accountability, despite clear allegations. 
• Erosion of Public Confidence: Overzealous implementation of accountability mechanisms could lead to the public perception of a judiciary under siege, potentially eroding public trust in judicial independence.  
  • If judges face constant scrutiny or fear removal for political reasons, they may become hesitant to deliver judgments that challenge the status quo, diminishing their role as impartial arbiters. 
  • Also, the contempt of court charges levied against media personalities or activists critical of the judiciary reflect how the judiciary might suppress external criticism, leading to concerns about its accountability and transparency. 
• Lack of Uniform Standards: Enforcing judicial accountability without clear, uniform guidelines can lead to inconsistencies in how cases of misconduct are handled.  
  • The absence of a standardized framework could result in disparate interpretations of judicial behavior, leading to unfair targeting of certain judges or biased investigations. 
  • For instance, the in-house procedure for investigating judicial misconduct remains inconsistent across various courts, with no statutory framework, leading to opaque decisions, as seen in cases involving the Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma. 

What Measures can be Adopted to Ensure Robust and Transparent Judicial Accountability Framework in India?

• Establishment of an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: A National Judicial Oversight Committee should be established, composed of retired judges, legal experts, and eminent persons from outside the judiciary, with authority to investigate judicial misconduct.  
  • This body would provide an impartial, transparent mechanism to review complaints against judges while ensuring that the judiciary is not subject to external political pressures.  
  • Empowering such an independent body with legal standing would establish a credible and neutral oversight system, fostering public trust in judicial accountability. 
• Revamping the Impeachment Process: The impeachment process should be reformed to make it more transparent and efficient. 
  • Introducing clear timelines for investigations, ensuring public disclosure of the proceedings, and requiring a more accessible complaint mechanism could significantly improve the process.  
  • This would ensure that accountability is not delayed or obstructed due to political maneuvering and would provide a stronger deterrent against judicial misconduct. 
• Public Disclosure of Judicial Assets and Liabilities: Mandating annual public declarations of judicial assets and liabilities, similar to those required of civil servants, would increase transparency and serve as a deterrent against corruption.  
  • Additionally, making these disclosures subject to scrutiny by an independent body or the media could significantly enhance accountability, particularly in instances of disproportionate wealth accumulation.  
  • Such transparency would further bolster the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. 
    • In 1997, the Supreme Court passed a resolution requiring judges to declare all assets, including those of their spouses and dependents, to the Chief Justice of India. 
• Strengthening the In-House Mechanism with Transparency: While the in-house procedure for handling judicial misconduct is valuable, it must be reformed to ensure greater transparency.  
  • Introducing formal reporting mechanisms that allow for public access to the outcomes of inquiries, without compromising judicial privacy, would increase the system’s credibility.  
  • Ensuring that disciplinary decisions are clearly communicated to the public would strengthen the judiciary’s accountability, while maintaining judicial independence. 
• Implementation of a National Judicial Conduct Code: Introducing a National Judicial Code of Conduct, enforced by an independent body, would provide clear guidelines on ethical behavior, conflicts of interest, and other aspects of judicial responsibility.  
  • This code would be more comprehensive than the current informal guidelines and would set clear standards for judges to follow. It would ensure that judges are held to consistent ethical standards, providing clarity and objectivity in disciplinary matters. 
• Judicial Performance Review and Reporting: Introducing a performance review system for judges, where the quality of their judgments and adherence to ethical standards is evaluated periodically, would add a layer of accountability.  
  • These reviews would be transparent, with aggregate results shared publicly while maintaining the confidentiality of individual cases.  
  • This would help monitor the effectiveness and integrity of the judiciary, ensuring that judges remain committed to high standards of professionalism. 
• Whistleblower Protection for Judicial Misconduct: To encourage the reporting of judicial misconduct, robust whistleblower protection mechanisms should be implemented within the judiciary.  
  • This would ensure that those who report misconduct, whether they are court employees or other stakeholders, are shielded from retaliation. By protecting whistleblowers, the system would encourage a culture of openness and allow the judiciary to self-correct when necessary. 

Conclusion: 

Current judicial accountability mechanisms, such as the Judges (Inquiry) Act, are often inefficient and politically influenced. To strengthen accountability, reforms like an independent oversight body, transparent asset declarations, and regular reviews are needed. These steps will safeguard judicial independence while boosting public trust. As former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted, "True judicial independence is not a shield to protect wrongdoing, but an instrument to secure the fulfilment of constitutional values." 

Drishti Mains Question:

Judicial accountability is a cornerstone of democratic governance, but it must be balanced with judicial independence. Examine the current mechanisms for judicial accountability in India. What reforms are needed to ensure a more transparent, effective, and accountable judiciary?

 

UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)  

Prelims:

Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India. 
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (2021)  

(a) 1 only   

(b) 2 only  

(c) Both 1 and 2   

(d) Neither I nor 2  

Ans: (c) 

---

Mains:

Q. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)