ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA
Gaurav Chakrabarti, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata
“Like old clocks, our judicial institutions need to be oiled, wound up and set to true time.”
–Lord Harry Woolf: Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, June 2000 – October 2005
This paper delves into the concept and significance of judicial accountability within the Indian legal framework. Beginning with an exploration of the essence of judicial accountability and its overarching purpose, it underscores the critical role it plays in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. The discussion extends to delineating the responsibilities of the bench towards the bar, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and legal practitioners in ensuring fair and equitable justice delivery. Furthermore, the paper scrutinizes the dichotomy between judicial activism and restraint, advocating for the latter as a cornerstone of judicial conduct to uphold the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. Illustrating these concepts through the seminal cases of impeachment proceedings against Justices Soumitra Sen and P D Dinakaran, the paper underscores the imperative of judicial accountability in preserving the trust of the citizenry and upholding the sanctity of the judicial institution in India
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY?
The basic component of every democratic system in the world is accountability. It entails people or institutions acknowledging responsibility for their deeds, offering explanations or preparing to face the possible repercussions. When talking about judicial accountability, we refer to the responsibility of the judges and the judiciary to act ethically, transparently and in accordance with the law, and at the same time, be answerable for their decisions and actions. Being entrusted with the role of administering justice, it is of vital importance that the judges and bureaucrats of the country are held responsible for their conduct. In the recent years, there have been instances where judicial decisions have caused public dissatisfaction with the judiciary. In rare circumstances, people have even gone to the extent of breaking the law to pursue justice by their own. To avoid such incidents, judicial accountability is of paramount importance. In India, like in several other nations, guaranteeing judicial accountability is critical for supporting the rule of law, protecting the citizens’ rights and preserving public trust in the justice system. Judges are supposed to carry out their duties fearlessly, free from bias or favouritism, while protecting the country’s laws and its constitution.
PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA
Holding the judiciary accountable for its actions would serve several purposes, including the following:
1) Ensuring fairness and impartiality – Judicial accountability helps to establish and uphold the rule of law, by deterring any conduct which questions judicial impartiality, integrity and capability. By holding judges responsible for their decisions, it helps to promote fairness and impartiality in the judicial decision-making process. Judicial accountability mechanisms strive to ensure that judges cannot get away with decisions that suffer from misapplication of the law, procedural irregularities or any other errors of law. It upholds fairness and impartiality in the judicial system by holding judges accountable for their actions and decisions. It ensures that the judiciary decide matters before them impartially, purely on the basis of facts and according to the proper law, without any kind of restrictions, influences, threats or interferences from any outside source.
2) Maintaining judicial independence – Judicial accountability ensures that judges are held accountable for their actions while maintaining their independence to deliver justice. It seeks to ensure that judges can adjudicate upon cases fairly and impartially, free from undue influence or interference from other branches of the government, political powers or special interests. It strikes a balance by holding judges responsible for their decisions and conduct while preserving their autonomy to interpret and apply the law.
3) Promoting public confidence in the judiciary – Accountability mechanisms such as codes of conduct, disciplinary procedures and oversight bodies demonstrate to the public that judges are held accountable for their actions. It makes the public realise that the judiciary is for the law and not above the law. It promotes transparency by making the judicial processes and decisions more accessible to the public, fostering greater scrutiny, confidence and understanding of the legal system. When the public understand that even the judges can potentially face disciplinary action due to incorrect application of the law or misconduct, they realise that everyone, i.e., citizens, lawmakers, leaders and judges are all accountable to the same set of laws, and thus rule of law is established.
4) Preventing corruption and abuse of power – Judicial accountability mechanisms help to prevent malpractices within the judiciary such as corruption, misconduct and abuse of power. The knowledge that their actions are subject to scrutiny and that complaints can lead to formal investigations acts as a deterrent against corruption and misconduct, since judges become aware that their behaviour and decisions are under constant review. High-profile cases of judicial corruption or misconduct often attract significant public scrutiny and media attention. This fear of public exposure and backlash serves as an incentive for the judges to uphold ethical standards and avoid engaging in corrupt practices.
5) Addressing judicial errors – Judicial accountability provides a formal framework for addressing errors committed by the judges while deciding cases and ensuring suitable remedies for the troubled parties. Accountability mechanisms such as appellate review and oversight commissions identify legal errors, procedural irregularities or misinterpretations of the law. These processes provide a mechanism for judges to correct their mistakes and ensuring that error-free judgement is awarded. It also shows to the general public that even the judges are not immune to making mistakes. By acknowledging and rectifying those mistakes, the judiciary strengthens the public trust and confidence in the judicial system of the country.
DUTIES OF THE BENCH TOWARDS THE BAR
While the Bench comprises of the judge, the Bar is composed of people who represent the clients before the court, i.e., the advocates. The former decides, while the latter advocates. The chariot of justice cannot advance unless both its wheels (Bar and Bench) move in cooperation and coordination with each other. The relationship between the two must at all times be cordial. Both should be complementary to each other. They must work hand-in-hand in order to maintain the dignity and honour of the legal profession and secure a spirit of friendly cooperation between each other, in the promotion of the highest standards of justice. They must act in coherence in the unified interest of administering justice. While the Bar is obligated to abide by certain ethical standards of legal profession while representing their clients in the court, the Bench similarly owes certain obligations to the Bar while adjudicating disputes. The following are the traits that can help the public maintain its confidence in its judges:
1. Consideration and courtesy – Respect is a two-way phenomenon. Just as lawyers must respect and honour the judges, the judges too must be considerate and courteous towards lawyers. A judge must not interrupt in between while an advocate is presenting his arguments or is in the process of examining the witness, except in order to prevent repetition or irrelevancy or to promote expedition. Demonstrating respect and courtesy fosters a professional atmosphere in the courtroom, which is essential for upholding the integrity of the justice system. When lawyers feel respected by the judge, they are more likely to present their arguments effectively, leading to a better understanding of the issues at hand and ultimately aiding the judge in making informed decisions. Respectful interactions between the judges and lawyers can foster a spirit of collaboration, where both parties work together to ensure that justice is served efficiently and effectively.
2. Admission of mistakes – Like any other human being, a judge may commit mistakes. Judges, through recognising and admitting those mistakes before the public, strengthen the public confidence in the judiciary. As famously remarked by Justice Jackson, that “We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible only because we are final” succinctly expresses the idea that the authority and legitimacy of a judicial body does not stem from its claim to be without error, but rather from its status as the ultimate arbitrer of legal disputes. Judges admitting their errors is a crucial aspect of maintaining trust, legitimacy and accountability in the judicial system. By acknowledging their mistakes, judges reassure the public that they are committed to upholding justice and fairness, even when it means acknowledging their own fallibility.
3. Honesty, Integrity and Fairness – Judges must be honest in the sense that if and when they create a new law, they must clearly mention so, for better public understanding. Honesty fosters accountability and maintains public trust and confidence in the legal system. Judges ought to be honest about the reasoning behind their decisions, especially when laying down new legal principles. Honesty entails explaining the rationale behind the decision-making process, including how the precedent, statutory provisions and legal principles were applied to the facts of the case in hand. Judges should not hide behind the rhetoric that judges declare what the law is but do not make it. It is only when the public is clearly told the truth that public confidence in the judicial system increases.
The functioning of the judiciary heavily depends on the integrity of the judges. Judicial integrity requires the judges to adhere to a core set of ethical standards and codes of conduct which uphold trust, fairness and impartiality in the decision-making process. Ethical considerations such as abstaining from indulging in corrupt practices, not having any ill will towards any of the parties, and ensuring equal protection before the law, serve as a moral compass for judges while deciding upon cases. When the public perceive the judiciary to be fair, unprejudiced and impartial, they feel secure under the laws of the country and believe that justice will prevail.
4. Impartiality and independence – impartiality and independence of judges are fundamental principles that uphold the integrity and fairness of the judicial system as a whole. Impartiality requires that judges must approach every case free from bias, prejudice or favouritism towards any of the parties involved. While deciding a case, the paramount consideration for a judge would be to stand for the cause of justice and fair justice only. He must not allow personal beliefs, opinions, interests or external influences to sway his judgement. He must discharge his duties independently and without any fear, favour, affection or ill will. Should he act under dictations from any authority, his judgement is liable to be set aside. While impartiality ensures that all parties to a legal dispute are treated fairly and are given an equal opportunity to present their arguments before the court, independence safeguards the judges’ ability to make decisions solely based on the law and legal principles, without fear of reprisal, retaliation or undue influence. When judges are impartial and independent, they inspire confidence that legal disputes will be resolved fairly and according to the law, irrespective of the parties involved or nature of the case. This contributes to the overall legitimacy, reliability and effectiveness of the judicial system of the country.
5. Awareness of limitations – Being regarded as the guardian of the constitution, the public view the judiciary to be their last resort to pursue justice. A judge, while exercising his judicial powers, ought to be aware of the limitations placed on his power. He must realise that in the name of judicial activism he cannot do whatever he pleases. He must have a thorough understanding of the constitutional and legal framework within which he operates, which includes separation of powers, scope of his judicial role and the principles of statutory and common law. Understanding the boundaries set by legal precedents helps judges avoid overstepping their authority and ensures consistency and predictability in the law. They must exercise judicial restraint and avoid indulging in judicial activism, which involves imposing their personal views and policy preferences through judicial decisions. They must also realise that they are subject to accountability mechanisms, including appellate review and potential judicial discipline, if they exceed the limits of their power. Thus, the solemn obligation of judges to know the limits of their power is essential for preserving the independence and integrity of the judiciary and upholding the rule of law.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the citizens’ rights and promoting justice. Judicial activism is such a method of deciding a case that allows the judges to interpret the law that deviates from the text of the legislation or that enables the development of new legal norms, principles or standards. While the practice of judicial activism was developed in the USA, it was brought to India by Justice O. Chinappareddy, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyyer, Justice P. Bhagwati and Justice D. A. Desai. Judicial Restraint, as opposed to judicial activism, is another theory of judicial interpretation that encourages the judges to exercise restraint over their judicial power. It relates to limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a particular law that they deem unlawful. While judicial activism requires the judges to look beyond the original intent of the framers of the constitution, judicial restraint, on the other hand, requires judges to only consider the original intent of the framers of the constitution and no more. Thus, judicial restraint can be said to be the antithesis of judicial activism.
Judicial restraint promotes judicial accountability by emphasising adherence to the law and deference to the legislative and executive branches. By limiting the powers of the judiciary, it helps in preserving a balance among the three branches of the government – the judiciary, executive and legislative. Judicial activism suffers from certain drawbacks – that first, in the name of judicial activism, the judiciary often mixes personal bias and opinion with the law, and that second, the theory of separation of powers among the three arms of the state goes for a toss while judges indulge in judicial activism. Hence, by refraining from exercising judicial activism, judges would ensure that they do not overstep their constitutional roles, maintaining public confidence and trust in the judiciary as impartial interpreters of the law rather than makers of policy. They must focus on interpreting and applying the law as it is laid down, without attempting to modify it as they deem fit. This ultimately fosters consistency and predictability in legal outcomes, strengthening fairness and accountability in the judicial system.
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES
1) Justice Soumitra Sen
Justice Soumitra Sen, formerly a judge of the Calcutta High Court, was impeached by the Indian Parliament in 2011, becoming the first judge in independent India to be removed by the Rajya Sabha. The impeachment resulted from allegations of financial misappropriation of Rs. 32 lakhs while serving as a court-appointed receiver in 1993 in a lawsuit between Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and Shipping Corporation of India over supply of firebricks. Justice Sen was accused of diverting cash for personal gain, which was deemed as a breach of trust and a misconduct unbecoming of a judge.
Justice Sen’s impeachment proceedings began in 2008, when the then Chief Justice of India recommended to the then president of India that Sen be removed from office. This sparked an investigation by a three-judge panel, which found merit in the claims against Sen. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Parliament, and the resolution to remove Sen was passed following extensive debate and investigation of evidence.
Justice Sen resigned before the Rajya Sabha concluded its impeachment process. Despite his resignation, the Rajya Sabha went ahead with the impeachment procedure and Sen was found guilty of embezzlement of funds and abuse of his judicial office for personal advantage.
The impeachment of Justice Soumitra Sen highlighted the accountability of judges and the need of maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in India.
2) Justice P. D. Dinakaran
Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran Premkumar, formerly the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, was impeached in 2011. Initiated by the members of the Rajya Sabha, the allegations of the impeachment motion against Justice Dinakaran included charges of corruption, land encroachment and abuse of judicial office for personal and professional gains. An inquiry committee of three members was constituted by the Rajya Sabha to investigate the charges and gather evidence. However, before the inquiry committee could conclude its investigation, Justice Dinakaran resigned from his position as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. As a result, the impeachment proceedings against him were terminated. Overall, the impeachment of Justice Dinakaran underscored the significance of judicial accountability and fairness within the Indian justice system. It further highlights the importance of impeachment as an essential mechanism to ensure accountability of the judiciary.
CONCLUSION
The need for judicial accountability in India is paramount, in order to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the legal system and upholding the principles of justice. Judicial accountability not only promotes the rule of law but also protects the citizens’ rights and preserves the public trust in the judicial system. Accountability mechanisms such as impeachment proceedings, allow the judiciary to be held responsible for malfeasance, thereby reinforcing the ideals of transparency and impartiality in the country’s legal system. Judicial accountability serves multiple purposes, including ensuring fairness and impartiality, safeguarding judicial independence, promoting public confidence in the judiciary, deterring judicial misconduct and addressing judicial errors. Judges must exercise judicial restraint and refrain from overstepping their authority through judicial activism, as this has the potential to undermine the separation of powers among the three wings of the government and as a result erode public faith in the judiciary.
The instances involving the impeachment of Justices Soumitra Sen and P. D. Dinakaran serves as poignant reminders of the gravity of judicial accountability and the consequences of judicial misconduct. These incidents highlight the necessity of robust mechanisms to hold the judges accountable for their actions and maintain the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. In conclusion, judicial accountability is essential for preserving the rule of law, promoting public trust and upholding the principles of justice in India’s democratic society.
REFERENCES
1) Kunal Jha: Judicial Accountability, Manupatra.
2) Sanya Kashyap: Judicial Accountability in India, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, Volume II Issue 1, ISSN: 2583-0538.
3) Anuradha Dhadge Girme: Judicial Accountability and Comparative Approach, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 8 Issue 07, ISSN: 2278-0181.
4) Prem Chandra, Ashutosh Garg, “Judicial Accountability and Transparency in India: Flaws and Road Ahead”, GLS Law Journal, Vol. 03, Issue 02, ISSN: 2582-5402.
5) Sukriti Yagyasen: Judicial Accountability in India, International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, Vol. 3, Issue 4, ISSN: 2349-7688.
6) Need for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Independence in India: IASbaba. iasbaba.com/2022/11/need-for-judicial-accountability-and-judicial-independence-in-india/
7) Allegations against Justice Soumitra Sen: Inquiry Committee Report: PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/allegations-against-justice-soumitra-sen-inquiry-committee-report