“REDEFINING JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: ADDRESSING CHALLENGES AND REFORMS IN INDIA’S COURTS”

Author: Saleha Haneef, a student at Integral University, Lucknow 

ABSTRACT

The judiciary’s role as a pillar of democracy makes it imperative to see transparency, fairness, and public assurance in its operation. Without accountability, even the perception of corruption or familiarity can sabotage the legitimacy of juridical decisions and erode trust in the Department of Justice. This article examines the present systems for judicial accountability in India, exposes their shortcomings, and emphasises the critical need for changes by suggesting reforms to solve systemic issues and enhance the judicial process. 

INTRODUCTION

In India, the judiciary plays a critical role as the protector of basic rights and the constitution. It acts as the last translator of the constabulary in order to uphold justice and maintain the delicate balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The rule of law and public trust in the democratic system rely on an independent judiciary. To ensure that the judiciary is transparent, moral, and free of corruption or abuse of authority, independence must be complemented with accountability.

The term “judicial accountability” describes the duty judges have to carry out their responsibilities in a fair, unbiased, and law-abiding manner while being held accountable for any wrongdoing, negligence, or abuse of authority. Judges are subject to examination and must meet the high-pitched monetary criterion of wholeness, just like all other public servants. This is the basis for the notion. At the same time, judicial independence and answerability must be carefully calibrated to avoid undue burden from outside forces like public opinion or political pressure. 

THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The concept of judicial accountability states that jurists, like any former public servants, must answer for their deeds, decisions, and teachings during their discriminatory process. It highlights the fact that jurists are subject to criticism and are required to uphold the highest standards of impartiality, completeness, and moral conduct. Nonetheless, judicial accountability and independence must be balanced in order to guarantee fair and impartial decision-making. 

Judicial accountability aims to prevent abuse of power and guarantee openness, while discriminatory independence allows judges to be free from outside pressure, political influence, and social stereotypes. One of the constitutional pillars that guarantees judges the freedom to determine matters without fear or favor is the judiciary’s independence. Yet, uncurbed independence without accountability can take to arbitrariness, corruption and erosion of public trust. Therefore, judicial independence and judicial accountability must work together to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. 

EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA  

 Judicial accountability is essential to maintain public trust, uphold integrity, and ensure impartiality within the judiciary. In India, various constitutional, statutory, and procedural mechanisms have been established to promote judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary. However, these mechanisms often face criticism for their limitations and inefficiency.

  1. Constitutional provisions 

The Indian Constitution provides for the impeachment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts due to misconduct and incompetence, under Articles 124 and 217. Article 235 asserts the High Court’s control over lower courts, ensuring accountability. Article 13, 32, and 226 protect the judiciary’s autonomy by allowing it to review and invalidate laws and executive actions that violate fundamental rights or exceed constitutional limits. Article 129 and 215, aimed at protecting judicial dignity, have been criticized for stifling criticism and shielding the judiciary from accountability. Article 50 ensures the judiciary operates independently, free from executive influence in decision-making.

The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v Union of India recognized the public’s right to question the judiciary’s decisions, as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, public dissatisfaction with the legal system has arisen due to judicial decisions, prompting individuals to seek justice themselves. Ensuring judicial accountability is crucial.

  1. Collegium System for Judicial Appointments

The collegium system manages the appointment and transfer of judges. While it promotes judicial independence, the lack of transparency in its functioning has raised concerns about accountability. The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission), proposed as an alternative, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, leaving the collegium system intact.

  1. Judges Inquiry Act (1968)

The judiciary has proposed an “in-house mechanism” to investigate corruption, as proposed by the Judges Inquiry Act Amendment Bill 2006. This mechanism consists of a National Judicial Council, including the Chief Justice, senior SC judges, and HC judges. However, the judges view themselves as a “close brotherhood” and are unwilling to take action against them. Section 33 of the bill prohibits disclosure of complaint information, making it impossible to publicize charges. Even if a judge is found guilty of serious misconduct, the council can only recommend impeachment, which has failed in the Ramaswamy case. It has been established that judges of Supreme Court or High Court cannot be subjected to investigation in any criminal offence including corruption, or a FIR cannot be registered against them without the prior approval of the CJI.

CHALLENGES IN JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is often regarded as a fundamental element in fostering effective governance. Judicial accountability can be viewed as a supplementary aspect of judicial independence. The primary obstacle in regulating judicial accountability is that the judiciary operates as an independent body, and the autonomy of judges cannot be compromised. Article 235 of the Indian Constitution delineates the power that any High Court holds over subordinate courts, which suggest the need for robust mechanism to uphold accountability.

The only method for removing a judge is through impeachment. This impeachment process is fraught with numerous challenges. This presents another significant hurdle faced by the judiciary in its efforts to establish judicial accountability.

The impact of political influence within the judicial framework poses another challenge for the judiciary’s ability to function with integrity. Judges may struggle to render decisions that are transparent and equitable if they are heavily influenced by the political entities in the nation. This complicates the judiciary’s task of enforcing accountability while also preserving its independence. 

NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS IN INDIA

Reforming the judiciary in India is critical to addressing the growing challenges of inefficiency, delays, a lack of accountability, and waning public trust in the legal system. As the custodian of the Constitution and the ultimate source of justice, the judiciary plays a critical role in preserving democracy, upholding the rule of law, and defending citizens’ rights. Nonetheless, the system faces various problems that impede its proper operation.

1. Accumulation of Cases  

India has the biggest number of outstanding court matters internationally. The buildup of cases and the associated delays in the administration and delivery of justice pose substantial challenges to the Indian judiciary. As of 2024, the total number of unresolved cases across all judicial levels topped 51 million (5.1 crores), including approximately 169,000 court cases that had been pending for more than 30 years in district and high courts. Importantly, district courts handle over 87% of these cases, totalling around 45 million (4.5 crore), highlighting the enormous demand felt at the local level. The average time it takes to conclude a case in Indian courts is 3 to 5 years, with some cases taking decades, resulting in delayed justice.

2. Judicial Gaps

The current backlog has been aggravated by an inadequate number of judges in both the High and Lower Courts. As of January 2024, the 25 High Courts had just 783 out of 1,114 authorised judges. As of early 2023, there were over 5,000 openings at the district level. Delays in selecting judges, which are sometimes caused by disputes between the judiciary and the administration, compound the situation by increasing the workload of present judges and impeding the judicial process.

3. Infrastructure and Technological Deficiencies

A research by Ministry of Law and Justice found serious infrastructural issues in district courts across the country, impeding justice delivery. Only 45% of court officials have access to electronic display equipment; 32.7% lack video conferencing; and 39% lack fire safety precautions. Support workers have minimal resources, and transit issues remain. The e-Courts effort has made considerable progress, but implementation varies, particularly in lower courts and rural areas.

4. Lack of Judicial Responsibility

The absence of an effective judicial accountability system has been a recurring problem, possibly weakening public trust. The current impeachment procedure for removing judges is rarely used and fails to address issues that do not justify impeachment. While the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) attempted to increase openness in the appointment process, it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2015, generating concerns over judicial independence vs accountability. Reports of suspected corruption and disagreements over post-retirement appointments have fuelled calls for greater openness in judicial operations.

5. Barriers to Accessing Justice

Despite efforts to improve legal accessibility, significant impediments to justice remain, especially for marginalised communities. The number of undertrial inmates has increased over the previous decade, and by 2022, they will account for 76% of India’s jail population, with many coming from underprivileged families and experiencing prejudice. Furthermore, high litigation expenses, convoluted procedures, and language challenges sometimes dissuade people from seeking legal help. Although legal aid is provided, it has been considerably underutilised, with barely 15 million people receiving it since the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was established in 1995, despite the fact that more than 80% of India’s population is eligible for it.

6. Judicial Overreach and Activism

Although judicial activism has resulted in significant rulings, it also prompts concerns about the separation of powers. For example, in the Anoop Baranwal case (2023), the Supreme Court altered the appointment process for Election Commissioners, incorporating the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India into the selection committee. Detractors contend that this decision intrudes upon the executive’s responsibilities, potentially upsetting the equilibrium of power within India’s democracy.

SUGGESTED REFORMS

India needs judicial reforms to address issues like delays in justice, allegations of misconduct, corruption, and lack of transparency. These reforms must balance judicial independence with accountability mechanisms. Key areas include a more transparent judicial appointment mechanism, simplifying the impeachment process for judges, establishing an independent investigative body, and promoting transparency in judicial functioning.

Reducing judicial delays and backlogs is crucial for timely justice. Increased judicial strength, digitization of court records, and e-filing systems can expedite case disposal. Special courts for specific case types and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can alleviate the burden on regular courts.

Reforming contempt of court laws and strengthening legal aid services can ensure constructive criticism. Institutionalizing continuous training and performance evaluation for judges can enhance judicial competence. Strengthening the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies can provide regular training on ethics, emerging laws, and technology. Periodic evaluations based on case disposal rates, quality of judgments, and ethical standards can further enhance accountability.

Judicial reforms are essential to restore public trust and ensure the judiciary’s credibility. Implementing these changes will strengthen the judiciary’s ability to uphold constitutional values and deliver timely and impartial justice.

CONCLUSION 

Judicial accountability is crucial for a democratic system, but in India, existing mechanisms often fail due to inefficiencies, lack of transparency, and lack of enforcement. Reforms are needed to address modern challenges like corruption, delayed justice, and public trust erosion. A balanced approach incorporating enforceable codes of conduct, transparency, and efficient grievance redressal is essential. Strengthening judicial accountability restores faith and reinforces the rule of law.

FAQs

  1. Why is judicial accountability important in India?

Judicial accountability ensures transparency, integrity, and public trust in the judiciary while maintaining its independence.

  1. What are the challenges in judicial accountability?

Challenges include lack of transparency in appointments, a cumbersome impeachment process, judicial delays, and insufficient mechanisms to address misconduct.

  1. What are the constitutional provisions safeguarding judicial independence?

Key provisions include Articles 124 and 217 (judicial appointments and tenure), 50 (separation of powers), and Articles 129 and 215 (contempt of court powers).

  1. What reforms are needed in the judicial appointment process?

Reforms include promoting transparency, simplifying the impeachment process, providing regular training on ethics, emerging laws, and technology

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *