Answer

India’s judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding the Constitution and maintaining checks and balances. However, recent events reveal that judicial independence is sometimes used to shield misconduct from public accountability. A transparent, balanced framework is needed to ensure ethical governance and restore public trust.

Judicial Independence Used as a Shield Against Accountability

• Opaque Appointment Process: The Collegium system functions without external oversight or transparency.
  Eg. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, resisting parliamentary role in judicial appointments.
• Secretive Misconduct Inquiries: Internal investigations lack transparency and public disclosure.
  Eg. In 2024, cash was found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, yet inquiry reports remain undisclosed.
• RTI Avoidance: The higher judiciary limits access under the Right to Information Act, citing institutional independence.
  Eg. Despite a 2019 Delhi HC order, SC hesitated to release Collegium records under RTI.
• Dismissal of Allegations Without Review: Allegations are closed with little explanation.
  Eg. Sexual harassment complaints against CJI Ranjan Gogoi in 2019 were dismissed in an opaque manner.
• No Public Audit of Performance: Judges are not evaluated on efficiency or integrity in the public domain.

Balancing Autonomy and Transparency for Ethical Governance

• Institutional Independence vs Democratic Scrutiny: Judicial autonomy safeguards from political interference, yet insulation breeds opacity.
  Eg. The Collegium’s secrecy defends independence but has led to allegations of nepotism.
• Confidentiality in Inquiries vs Right to Know: Internal mechanisms prioritize confidentiality over public accountability.
  Eg. The ‘in-house procedure’ keeps misconduct reports secret , even in cases like Justice Yashwant Varma.
• Freedom from External Oversight vs Public Trust: Judicial freedom ensures impartiality, but unchecked power risks arbitrariness.
  Eg. In Justice Surya Kant’s case, corruption claims went uninvestigated, with no public disclosure of status.
• Constitutional Role vs Transparency Norms: The judiciary’s unique constitutional role grants autonomy, but lacks clear standards for transparency.
  Eg. Unlike constitutional posts like CAG or ECI, judicial disclosures are inconsistent and voluntary.
• Internal Accountability vs External Mechanisms: Judges argue peer-based accountability is sufficient, but absence of independent scrutiny undermines legitimacy.
  Eg. The judiciary opposes external oversight like Judicial Commissions, fearing erosion of independence.

Measures to Strengthen the Balance (Using International Best Practices)

• Revise In-House Procedure into Statutory Mechanism: Establish a law-backed complaint mechanism.
  Eg. The Canadian Judicial Council investigates misconduct through a structured, public process.
• Adopt Judicial Ombudsman Model: An independent ombudsman can receive and review complaints.
  Eg. Sweden uses a Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate all branches, including judiciary.
• Annual Asset Disclosure by Judges: Promote ethical integrity through mandatory public declarations.
  Eg. Judges in Kenya must disclose assets to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission annually.
• Publish Performance Dashboards: Create digital dashboards showing judge-wise data on case disposal.
  Eg. Singapore Judiciary regularly publishes court performance statistics, improving transparency and planning.
• Public Participation in Oversight Committees: Include lay members in misconduct review panels.
  Eg. In New Zealand, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner system includes non-judicial members to ensure fairness.

Judicial independence must not be a sanctuary for secrecy. A balanced framework, rooted in both autonomy and transparency, is vital to uphold democratic values, restore public confidence, and ensure that the judiciary serves with both freedom and responsibility. Strengthening ethical governance is not an option, it is a necessity.

DOWNLOAD PDF