Answer:

Judicial misconduct in India refers to unethical behaviour or actions that violate judicial ethics by judges or court officials. While mechanisms exist to report such misconduct, including the in-house procedure of the judiciary and impeachment, these systems are often criticised for their lack of transparency and accountability. This issue raises concerns about maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring public trust in legal institutions.

Effectiveness of Existing Mechanisms for Reporting Judicial Misconduct:

• In-House Procedure of Judiciary: The judiciary has an internal mechanism to address allegations of misconduct. However, this process lacks transparency as proceedings are often not made public.
  For example: The inquiry into Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court was conducted in-house before his resignation.
• Impeachment Process: The Constitution (Article 124) provides for the impeachment of judges in cases of serious misconduct, though this process is rare and requires a high threshold of evidence, involving a multi-step procedure through both houses of Parliament.
  For example: The impeachment motion against Justice Dipak Misra was initiated but rejected by the Vice President in 2018.
• External Oversight: Current mechanisms do not allow for significant external oversight, making it difficult to ensure impartial investigations into misconduct.
  For instance: Unlike the Lokpal, which oversees government officials, there is no similar independent body for judicial oversight.
• Collegium System : The process of reporting misconduct is hindered by the collegium system, which is criticized for being opaque and self-regulating.
  For instance: The elevation of judges, even with allegations of misconduct, continues under the collegium system without public disclosure.
• Bar Associations: Although bar associations can report judicial misconduct, their influence is often limited, and their complaints may not lead to substantial investigations.
  For instance: The complaints against former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi were not pursued rigorously by the bar associations.
• Absence of a Clear Reporting Mechanism for the Public: There is no well-defined mechanism for the general public to report judicial misconduct, creating a barrier to accessing justice.
  For instance: Cases of judicial bias or inappropriate behavior reported by litigants often go unheard due to the absence of a formal procedure.

Measures to improve mechanisms for Enhance Accountability:

• Establishing an Independent Oversight Body: A neutral body, independent of the judiciary, can investigate allegations of misconduct without bias.
  For instance: A National Judicial Commission could be modeled after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for impartial investigations.
• Introducing a Whistleblower Protection Mechanism: Judges and court staff should be protected under a whistleblower policy to report misconduct without fear of reprisal.
  For example: The Whistleblower Protection Act (2015) could be extended to cover judicial employees and ensure their safety in reporting wrongdoings.
• Increasing Transparency in Collegium Decisions: The collegium system should publish decisions and reasoning for elevating or removing judges, especially when allegations are involved.
  For instance: Disclosing the reasons for rejecting a judge’s appointment would enhance public trust in the judiciary.
• Empowering Bar Associations: Bar associations should be given more authority and mechanisms to escalate cases of judicial misconduct, ensuring that complaints are addressed effectively.
  For instance: The Bar Council of India could collaborate with judicial bodies to ensure thorough investigations.
• Fast-Tracking Judicial Impeachment Procedures: The impeachment process should be made faster and less politically driven to hold judges accountable in a timely manner.
  For instance: Establishing a time-bound inquiry for impeachment motions would prevent delays, as seen in past cases.
• Creating Public Complaint Portals: A transparent online platform where citizens can report judicial misconduct with clear guidelines and follow-ups would make the process more accessible.
  For instance: A judicial version of the Public Grievances Portal could be established for transparency and tracking complaints.
• Implementing the Judicial Accountability Bill: Passing the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 would introduce stronger checks on judicial conduct and establish formal reporting channels.
  For instance: The bill proposes mandatory disclosure of judges’ assets, enhancing transparency.

The mechanisms for reporting judicial misconduct in India need urgent reforms to ensure greater accountability and transparency. By establishing independent oversight bodies, enhancing the role of bar associations, and implementing clear public reporting systems, the judiciary can improve its integrity. This will not only restore public trust but also uphold the values of justice, fairness, and impartiality within the legal framework.