Need to Ensure Judicial Accountability

  Sansad TV   Apr 20, 2025  Add to Reading List

The recent uproar over the alleged seizure of substantial cash from a Delhi High Court judge's residence has once again brought the spotlight onto India's judicial system. This incident has sparked debate about the need for reform, especially in areas related to transparency, ethical accountability, and how judges are appointed and monitored.

What is the Collegium System?

India’s Collegium System refers to the internal process used to appoint and transfer judges in the higher judiciary. Interestingly, this system isn’t mentioned in the Constitution or laid down by any law—it was developed over time through Supreme Court judgments.

How Did the Collegium System Evolve?

  1. First Judges Case (1981)
    The Supreme Court held that the government's opinion could outweigh the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) recommendation. This gave the Executive significant say in judicial appointments for over a decade.

  2. Second Judges Case (1993)
    The Supreme Court overruled its earlier view, stating that "consultation" with the CJI actually meant "concurrence." A collegial body (not just the CJI alone) would now recommend judicial appointments, involving the two most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

  3. Third Judges Case (1998)
    The Collegium was expanded to include the CJI and four senior-most judges. This made it a five-member body responsible for decisions regarding judicial appointments and transfers.

Attempted Reform: NJAC and Its Rejection

In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment and created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the Collegium. The NJAC aimed to make the process more transparent and include both judicial and non-judicial members.

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, citing concerns over judicial independence and undue executive influence.

Key Issues Undermining Judicial Accountability

  1. Opaque Procedures Judicial appointments, transfers, and disciplinary actions are carried out behind closed doors. There is little public disclosure or rationale provided for such decisions, making it hard to hold anyone accountable.

  2. Weak Accountability Framework Internal inquiries (called in-house procedures) are used to deal with allegations of misconduct. These are not legally binding and often lack transparency. The only constitutional way to remove a judge is through impeachment by Parliament—an extremely rare, complex, and political process.

  3. Nepotism and Favouritism The Collegium has often been criticized for favoring candidates based on personal connections rather than merit. Even when adverse intelligence inputs are available, the Collegium’s recommendations are binding on the government.

  4. Lack of Ethical Oversight Judges are expected to follow the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a voluntary ethical guideline issued in 1997. But it’s not enforceable by law, and there’s no mandatory declaration of assets or professional conduct norms.

What Can Be Done?

  1. Independent Oversight Body
    Set up a statutory, independent institution empowered to investigate misconduct or corruption allegations against judges—without compromising the judiciary’s independence.

  2. Revamp the Collegium System
    Clearly define eligibility criteria for appointments, document reasons for selection or rejection, and allow public access to decisions to improve credibility.

  3. Binding Judicial Code of Ethics
    Introduce a legal and enforceable code of conduct that includes mandatory asset disclosures, conflict-of-interest checks, and periodic reviews.

  4. Swift and Time-Bound Investigations
    Create a fixed timeline to resolve complaints against judges, so cases don’t get buried due to delays, resignations, or political pressure.

  5. Enhance Transparency Across the Board
    Make judicial appointments, case allocations, and disciplinary proceedings open to scrutiny. Use digital platforms to release annual reports and decisions.

  6. Streamline the Impeachment Process
    Amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to simplify the procedure for removing judges in serious cases of proven misconduct, without making it politicized or overly burdensome.

✅ Conclusion

India’s judiciary is the cornerstone of its democracy, but it must evolve with the times. The current system of judicial appointments and oversight lacks transparency, which weakens public trust. Recent controversies only reinforce the urgency for reforms. Establishing a transparent, fair, and accountable system will not only safeguard judicial integrity but also strengthen the rule of law and democratic governance in India.