Answer

Judicial accountability and transparency are essential pillars in upholding the integrity, independence, and credibility of the judiciary in a democratic society. As the judiciary plays a central role in interpreting the Constitution and delivering justice, evolving executive-judiciary dynamics, rising public expectations, and increasing scrutiny demand robust mechanisms that balance institutional independence with public accountability and openness.

Role of Judicial Accountability and Transparency in Preserving Institutional Integrity

• Ensures Public Trust: Accountability in the judiciary enhances public confidence in fair justice delivery and deters judicial overreach or corruption.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s decision to publish Collegium resolutions since 2017 improved transparency in appointments, reducing secrecy and improving public scrutiny of judicial actions.
• Balances Independence and Responsibility: A transparent judiciary respects the doctrine of separation of powers while being accountable for its decisions, promoting institutional integrity.
  For example: The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) helps track case disposals, delays, and performance, supporting both efficiency and accountability.
• Mitigates Corruption Risks: Accountability mechanisms can expose unethical conduct within the system, maintaining the moral authority of the judiciary.
  For example: In 2021, a former Allahabad High Court judge was investigated for alleged corruption, triggering a call for better internal disciplinary systems.
• Encourages Judicial Ethics: A transparent environment enforces ethical behavior, discouraging bias or misuse of discretion.
  For example: The adoption of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) by the Supreme Court set ethical standards for judges in public and private life.
• Improves Efficiency and Access to Justice: Open data and public accountability measures enable data-driven reforms in the justice system, leading to better resource allocation and accessibility.
  For example: The e-Courts Mission Mode Project has digitized case files and enabled live tracking, enhancing transparency and reducing inefficiency.

Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Accountability and Transparency

• Opaque Collegium System: The closed nature of judicial appointments through the Collegium limits public oversight and accountability.
  For example: The rejection of the Right to Information (RTI) disclosure request on Collegium deliberations highlighted ongoing secrecy in the system.
• Limited Disciplinary Mechanisms: There are inadequate internal mechanisms to investigate misconduct of sitting judges, delaying or preventing justice.
  For example: The impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) showed how institutional gaps prolong action against judicial impropriety.
• Conflict Between Independence and Oversight: Efforts to enforce accountability are often viewed as attacks on judicial independence, leading to institutional friction.
  For example: The tussle between the Executive and Judiciary over the NJAC Act (2015) demonstrated resistance to external checks.
• Inaccessibility to Court Proceedings: Many courtrooms do not permit video recording or public access, limiting transparency and public understanding.
  For example: Despite SC directives, live-streaming of court proceedings remains limited to a few constitutional benches.
• Lack of Uniform Ethical Standards: There is no binding code of conduct enforceable through a statutory body, leading to inconsistent disciplinary outcomes.
  For example: The absence of a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill restricts accountability of lower and higher judiciary.

Reforms to Strengthen Judicial Independence While Ensuring Accountability

• Codified Judicial Conduct: Enacting a statutory Judicial Standards and Accountability Act can enforce clear behavioral norms.
  For example: The proposed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2022) aimed to create a mechanism for complaints against judges and was supported by the Law Commission.
• Transparent Collegium Processes: Making Collegium meetings more transparent through published minutes and criteria for selection can improve trust.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s 2017 initiative to publish Collegium recommendations and reasons was a first step but needs to be institutionalized.
• Strengthen Judicial Infrastructure and Training: Better infrastructure and continuous judicial training on ethics, digital literacy, and rights-based law enhance autonomy and competence.
  For example: The National Judicial Academy (Bhopal) regularly trains judges on emerging areas like technology law and judicial ethics.
• Live-Streaming and Public Access: Expanding live-streaming of proceedings and digital access to judgments can democratize the justice process.
  For example: Following the Swapnil Tripathi case (2018), live-streaming was permitted for select constitutional matters, enabling greater public scrutiny.
• Independent Oversight Body: Creating an independent Judicial Complaints Commission could review misconduct cases while preserving autonomy.
  

As India’s democracy matures, judicial accountability and transparency are essential to sustain the legitimacy of the courts while respecting judicial independence. Reforming appointment mechanisms, enhancing ethical standards, and institutionalizing oversight can preserve the integrity of the judiciary amid growing demands for fairness, efficiency, and democratic responsiveness.

DOWNLOAD PDF