Mains Practice Questions

Approach :

• Briefly introduce the concept of judicial independence and judicial accountability.
• Discuss the need for judicial independence and judicial accountability.
• Highlight the challenges in balancing judicial independence and judicial accountability.
• Conclude with a suitable way forward.

Introduction:

Judicial independence ensures that judges decide cases free from political, social, or economic pressures, while judicial accountability ensures they remain answerable to the Constitution and public trust. Both are indispensable for the rule of law. The challenge in India lies in protecting independence without allowing opacity, and enforcing accountability without political interference.

Body

Need for Judicial Independence

• Constitutional Safeguards: Articles 50, 124–147, and 214–231 insulate the judiciary from executive interference.
• Landmark Judgments:
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) → judicial review and independence made part of the Basic Structure.
  • S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) → stressed independence in appointments and transfers.
• Public Confidence: Judicial independence ensures the protection of Fundamental Rights, e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life & Liberty).

Need for Judicial Accountability

• Prevents arbitrariness in a system where judges enjoy wide powers.
• PIL misuse and judicial overreach underline the need for self-restraint.
• Instances of Misconduct: Justice V. Ramaswami (1990s impeachment attempt) showed the difficulty of disciplining judges.
• Public Expectations: As per a Transparency International survey, confidence in the judiciary declines when accountability appears weak.

Challenges in Balancing Independence and Accountability

• Opaque Collegium System: SC’s Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998) created a judge-led appointments process ensuring independence but criticized for lack of transparency.
• NJAC Verdict (2015): SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission citing violation of judicial independence, but this revived concerns about accountability.
• Impeachment Mechanism: Cumbersome and rarely effective.
• Judicial Overreach: Interventions in policy decisions raise accountability concerns and blur separation of powers.(Liquor Ban on Highways,2017)
• Post-retirement Appointments: Judges taking posts in commissions or politics soon after retirement raise doubts about impartiality.
• Pendency of Cases: With over 5 crore cases pending (2024 data, NJDG), accountability to citizens through timely justice is questioned.
• External Pressures: Media trials and political commentary can erode independence.

Way Forward

• Transparent Appointment System: Reform collegium with wider consultation and record-based reasoning without diluting independence.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Revisit provisions for complaint redressal and asset declaration.
• Internal Ethics Mechanisms: Strengthen in-house disciplinary procedures with periodic review.
• Digitalisation & Case Management: Speed up justice delivery to enhance accountability.(e-Courts, NJDG for pendency tracking)
• Cooling-off Period: Mandate for post-retirement posts to preserve impartiality.
• Balance of Powers: Legislature and executive must respect judicial space while judiciary practices self-restraint.

Conclusion:

As former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “True judicial independence is not a shield to protect wrongdoing, but an instrument to secure the fulfilment of constitutional values.” In essence, a judiciary that balances independence with accountability not only safeguards the Constitution but also reinforces the ethical foundations of India’s democracy.