Judicial Accountability and Independence of the Judiciary - A Critical Analysis  

Judicial accountability is that judges are solely responsible for the choices they make.  Accountability is established more easily when decision-making procedures are transparent. Every public organization must answer to the people for the choices it makes and the tasks it  completes. Accountability means taking ownership of your decisions and actions in its most  basic form. In general, it refers to having accountability to any external entity. Others contend,  however, that responsibility should lie with one's principles or oneself instead of with an  organization that can censure or punish. 

Since Article 235 ¹If the Constitution lists accountability as one of the aspects of independence,  it is a necessary provision. The "control" the Highest court of appeal in the state has on the  judges of the lower courts is evidence of how well the system for enforcing accountability is  working. Because the Court of Appeal is not beholden to the government or the legislature,  providing it jurisdiction over the lesser courts maintains its independence. There is no  framework for the higher courts because the constitution's founders considered a component  of saving in the most severe cases, and "settled norms" and "peer pressure" might serve as  insufficient checks.  

Rightfully stating that "A single dishonest judge not only dishonors himself and disgraces his  office but also jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system," the Hon. Supreme Court.  It begs the issue of why we want accountability. During its campaign, “the People's Convention  on Judicial Accountability and Reforms” claimed that "the country's judicial system has  transformed from being an instrument of harassment of the common people of the country  away from being an instrument for protecting the rights of the weak and the oppressed."The  obligations and tasks performed by the public body or organization determine the level of  responsibility.  

When examined closely, the independence of the judiciary and accountability of the judiciary  clash. However, having both is essential for the country's legal system. Increased judicial  accountability is justified by balancing independence and responsibility, supporting the rule of  law, and prioritizing the law over all others. More judicial accountability is necessary to  guarantee that judges conduct impartial and fair hearings. This is comparable to judicial  independence, which encourages fair and transparent hearings but does not benefit the judges  as has been perceived in numerous situations. 

Examination of judicial independence by looking at it from a normative perspective.  

It has been observed that the judiciaries in countries like India, where democracy is the  standpoint of the nation's conduct, the misconduct of the same has never been hidden from the  eyes of the public perspective. Whether it is about the three brackets in a democratic country, i.e., the Legislative, Executive, or Judiciary, or about the influence of Politicians, every aspect  has been alleged to be in the debt of misconduct.², corruption³ Or power dominance that has  not just caused conflict of Interest but has led to delay in the disposition of critical and sensitive  issues, be it the cases⁴ Under the periphery of the Judiciary.  

Indian Judiciary, in recent years, has come under severe examination, majorly due to two  reasons, as per the scholars, i.e., firstly, there has been a decline in judicial independence in the  contemporary world. Secondly, the court has been seen allegedly taking bribes, corrupt and not  being accountable for its purpose, and further lacking transparency.⁵. Judges have occasionally  been referred to as "enemies of the people."⁶ Be it India or a Western country like the UK. Not  to be surprised, it has also been observed that judges are charged for conducting excessive  reviews and interfering in politics in the UK. However, suppose the regulatory architecture is  built and operated with judicial independence and accountability in mind. In that case, regulatory regimes can satisfy accountability objectives even though they cannot entirely  address these claims. 

Judicial independence: What It is and What it Covers  

It is widely believed that independence in the judicial system is a principle that should be  respected and supported.⁷. It refers to the legal independence provided to the judicial  professionals, requiring the State to give enough systems for protection and resources to  maintain this independence.⁸. Experts emphasize that there are three crucial components of  judicial independence: institutional, Internal, and Individual, with individual and institutional  aspects being the primary focus in both international and domestic laws. Another way around a political principle known as "independent judiciary" is to guarantee that the judiciary  interprets laws and constitutions free from interference from the government or partisan  interests.  

This could be further understood concerning the case of United States v/s Nixon (1974)⁹, where  The Watergate Trial Tapes were to be turned on, according to President Richard Nixon, after  an overwhelming recommendation was made against him. This ruling reinforced the principle  of the principle of law. It reminded everyone, even the US President, is accountable to the law.  

The Allahabad High Court later confirmed it in the said verdict of State of U.P v/s Raj Narain  & Ors (1975)¹⁰ That then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was guilty of electoral malpractices  carried over by her and her party at the time of the election operations, resulting in her being ordered to annul the election.  

While the UK and India use judicial supremacy to assure independence, with India maintaining  a strong democratic ethos, the USA adopts separation of powers to establish an independent  judiciary. The precondition for ensuring the strong democratic spirit of any country is an independent judiciary. 

The Indian assertive judiciary's independence from outside influence  

In light of the threats it faces from outside forces and strong organizations, this research looks  at the qualities, necessity, and unpredictability of an independent judiciary in India, the most  significant democracy in the entire world. The principle of independence given to the Judicial  body is upheld by the Indian constitution, which is bolstered by several post-independence  provisions that ensure the judiciary's geographical integrity. 

Tenure of judges  

It establishes the prerequisites for selecting a judge for the Higher Court in conformity with  Article 217¹¹ Of the Indian Constitution. After being appointed, higher court and SC justices  are permitted to remain in their positions until they are 65 and 62 years old. However, this is  subject to change due to certain unforeseen circumstances and conditions, which include  impeachment, death, etc.  

The Constitution (114th Amendment) Bill, 2010¹², however, suggested raising the High Court  judges' age for retirement to 65. But it failed to pass. Similarly Art 124 (2)¹³ It lays down that  the President should choose each Supreme Court justice, and they would serve until they turned  65. The Second Judges Case (1993), also known as the Supreme Court Advocates on Record  Association v. Union of India¹⁴ The case was held that the President must obtain the consent of  the Chief Justice of India before appointing judges to the High Court and Supreme Court. This  case was overruled in the case of SP Gupta v/s Union of India.¹⁵ by a 7:2 margin. A PIL writ  petition signed by a lawyer for the party in question was used to bring the issue before the  court. To appoint judges to vacancies, the executive, according to the petitioner, cannot fill the  position in the higher judiciary on time and without violating the ability to select judges who  meet the highest standards.  

Salaries and Allowances to the Judicial Heads  

Judges' compensation is covered in Art 125¹⁶ Of the Constitution of India. The Second  Schedule contains some compensation information, and the Parliament may legally change it.  India's conglomerate fund covers Supreme Court judges' salaries, while each state's collective  fund covers High Court judges' salaries. 

An Authoritative Power of Supreme Court Jurisdiction  

With the references to Art 32¹⁷, a human being may apply to the Supreme Court of India to  obtain adequate justice because it has the authority to issue writs. The Parliament cannot limit  the Supreme Court's rule, even though it can alter the financial jurisdiction in civil cases. In  Article 211¹⁸The Constitution forbids debate in a State's legislature regarding the judicial  actions of a Higher Court or the SC. 

Challenges of Judicial Independence in India  

The bench must overcome fundamental issues to protect its independence from political  influences and problems like retaining independence and avoiding politicization. The  challenges that the Independent Judiciary faces are as follows:- 

a) Possibility of biases in the structural conduct- The proverb Nemo Judex In Causa Sua  states that judges must be fair and impartial. Three different sorts of judge biases,  nevertheless, can have an impact on court proceedings.  

- Personal biases are created due to the relationship extensions that grow between  parties, which tend to prioritize one party over another. In the given situation it  is witnessed in the case of Nanjundappa (B.N) v/s State of Mysore (1964)¹⁹The  Karnataka High Court declared that when appealing for a case on the grounds  of personal biases, it is of utmost necessity to prove the defense side most  effectively.  

- About the case of M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors.²⁰, the  court invalidated the order in question and tasked a different judge to hear the  appeal. 

b) Political parties: influential entity - For personal and political gain, political parties  frequently defame and denigrate the Indian judicial system. In West Bengal, members  of the ruling parties demonstrated against a judge's decision, prohibiting plaintiffs from  visiting courtrooms if their interests are unmet. 

c) Difficulties with security while performing judicial duties- Judges are people who care  about the security of their families and frequently experience threats due to their judicial  responsibilities. Judges were assassinated in broad sight for rendering unfavorable  decisions in 1989 and 2021. The Supreme Court took action and sentenced those  responsible to life in prison, prompting questions about the security of justices while  they execute their duties. 

Assessing judicial accountability by approaching it from an empirical standpoint. Meaning and Scope of Judicial Accountability  

Judicial accountability is when judges take responsibility for their actions and maintain  openness in decision-making. Public bodies must account for the public's actions and choices.  The court is not held to the same accountability standards as the executive or legislative  branches because it is autonomous.  

The rules for the examination have been established. Modification and the appeals process  provide judicial accountability. The removal of higher qualified justices is governed by the  requirements of Articles 124(2) and (4), whilst the dismissal of Higher Court judges is  governed by Art 217.  

Two-thirds of the members of Parliament must vote in favor to begin impeachment  proceedings. Due to political, social, and economic challenges, the impeachment of just one  Supreme Court justice was unsuccessful. This shows how much more robust judicial  accountability is required. Judges have freedom but cannot abuse it to hurt the interests of the  public. If corrupt actions occur, they must be looked into to stop and limit them. 

To control the investigation process and find evidence of incapacity and misconduct committed  on behalf of the bench under the Supreme Court and High Court, which must be presented in  front of the Houses of Parliament while they vote, The 1968 Constitution of Judges (Inquiry)  Act's Article 124(5) went into effect. But it's vital to remember that there are a few issues with  how this Article is being implemented.

Objectives: Judicial Accountability  

While judicial accountability fosters institutional responsibility, public confidence, and the rule  of law, judicial independence supports power separation, due process, and the protection of the  law. It deters conduct that compromises independence, integrity, and impartiality and reassures  the public about proper judiciary functioning.²¹. 

Genera: Accountability of the Judiciary 

Accountability of the judiciary and taxonomy can be broken down into institutional,  behavioral, and decisional responsibility. It seeks to discern between valuable and detrimental  types of responsibility. Judges' decisions are subject to decisional, behavioral, and institutional  accountability, focusing on their behavior as a group and individual government branch. 

Institutional Accountability 

Judicial performance as an independent part of government is subject to institutional  accountability, which refers to the obligation of judges to uphold that standard. It entails  budgetary accountability, in which the federal government and state legislatures manage  spending plans and set salaries.²², and operations accountability, in which the federal  government controls the judiciary's overall operations and the courts' size, makeup, practice,  and jurisdiction. 

Institutional transparency and accountability are closely related because they enable the  judiciary to serve the public as a distinct branch of the government. However, it is restricted to  actions meant to enhance the administration of the judiciary. Decisional accountability systems  control judicial decision-making on particular topics. Institutional accountability has 

limitations because federal systems have broad legislative power restrictions, whereas states  frequently establish separate judiciaries with self-administration powers. 

Behavioral Accountability 

A legal theory known as behavioral accountability holds judges responsible for behavior that  can jeopardize their independence, impartiality, or integrity. The two types of accountability  are judicial and extrajudicial. Holding judges accountable for their official conduct, such as ex parte communications, racial bias, or public positions, is a key component of the legal aspect.  The extrajudicial component focuses on behavior a judge's ability while off the bench ability  to serve in that capacity, such as accepting gifts or participating in political, professional, civic,  or charitable endeavors.  

Decisional Accountability  

Judges are held responsible for their judgments through decisional accountability, which aims  to deter and correct judicial error. It tackles purposeful and involuntary mistakes; intentional  mistakes frequently result from monetary gain, favoritism, hunger for power, and bias. There  are, however, some exceptions, such as in the late 990s case of the Court of California of  Appeals Judge Anthony Kline.²³, who disregarded the state Supreme Court's controlling  precedent by arguing that the only occasion for the Supreme Court to respond to a request for  reconsideration of a decision rejecting the precedent²⁴. 

Requirements V/S Challenges in the Peripheral of Judicial Accountability  

India's democratic constitution ensures social, political, and economic justice, with informed  consent and accountability of authority figures, including judges as representatives of law bound individuals. 

Recent events in India have brought to light the public's anger and discontent with the legal  system, underscoring the necessity for the judiciary to be held responsible for developing  negative values. The idea of judicial accountability is prevalent worldwide and through the  well-known judges who promote morality and ethics in legality. 

In the judiciary system, a judge is said to avoid too much socializing, in terms of avoiding too  much networking, which interferes with the judge's ability to act freely for social reasons,  which increases the judge's susceptibility to influence. 

However, in the case of Ram Pratap Sharma v. Dayanand²⁵The Supreme Court stressed the  significance of judges declining invitations from business, political, or commercial entities to prevent influencing them. The collegium structure, consisting of all senior Supreme Court  judges, is criticized for prejudice and lack of openness. Because judges can only be removed  under this system through an impeachment that needs to have the backing of a majority in both  Houses of Parliament, India has tremendous, unrestrained power. 

Increased demand for enhanced judicial accountability due to media coverage of evidence backed complaints against judges, requiring strong judge organizations to enable independent  verdict delivery while maintaining control. 

Judicial accountability, a prerequisite for effective government, follows from judicial  independence. Judges' impartiality, the top court's sway over lesser courts, the difficulties  associated with impeachment, and the impact of politics on the legal system are all obstacles.  The Indian Constitution grants the High Court control over lower courts, but this creates  difficulties in establishing accountability and protecting the independence of the judiciary. 

Urge for Stronger and More Efficient Judicial Accountability 

Indeed, looking at the condition and the pendency of cases under the Indian Judiciary, there is  an urgent urge for more potent and more efficient Judicial Accountability.  India's democratic society is rapidly changing, with increasing public demand for education  and increased public participation. Accountability among public officials and institutions,  including the judiciary, is essential to ensure a welfare state. However, there is no remedy for  regulating misbehavior among judges, and there is no provision in the Indian Constitution to  charge judges for their misbehavior during court proceedings. Constitutional legitimacy is  crucial for the judiciary's decisions and laws, and stronger judicial accountability is required to  ensure fairness and clarity. 

To maintain fair justice, it is necessary to hold judges accountable for the reserving of seats for  weaker, depressed groups due to their personal backgrounds and political affiliations, which  can be detrimental to the judiciary. The Supreme Court currently has 31 judges, but only a few  judgments have changed the existing framework. Efficiency in the judiciary is needed to  prevent loopholes and deficiencies. 

Transparency is also necessary for the judiciary to deliver justice to the ordinary citizens.  The Constitution of India does not have such a clause to review Supreme Court decisions, and  the judiciary must prioritize security, accountability, and transparency. In the 21st century,  justice must include honesty, fairness, and responsibility from the judiciary. 

The Reasoning By Elimination  

The Balance: Judicial Independence & Judicial Accountability  

Delivering justice to the ordinary people of a country effectively depends on judicial  independence and accountability. Both ideas are founded on the rule of law and support  unbiased and fair hearings for judges. However, rather than being mutually exclusive, they  should be seen as complementary. By guaranteeing judicial courage and integrity, both ideas  seek to improve the effectiveness of the legal structure or framework. Territorial needs and the  efficiency of the current judges should be considered when balancing these ideas; to give  citizens impartial justice, judicial accountability, and independence should be regulated jointly  rather than in competition. Stronger judicial accountability can be introduced to the country by  balancing these ideas.  

Such an ideology could be highlighted with the following case analysis In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others²⁶ A judgment where problems with judicial  accountability are caused by restricting the investigation of civil or criminal charges without  the Chief Justice's assent. Due to this ruling, the concept of judicial accountability was  eliminated, and the fairness of the legal system was compromised. 

In the verdict of Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India & Ors²⁷ Demonstrated that the judiciary  has flaws and requires strong judicial accountability. Despite being accused of squandering  court funds, Justice Ramaswamy was not removed from office due to a party's abstention.  Strong judicial accountability ensures the proper and equitable administration of justice and the dependability and credibility of the judiciary's decision-making process. 

¹INDIA CONST. art, 235

²Jeffrey Gettleman, 'India's Chief Justice Is Accused of Sexual Harassment' The New York Times (New York, 20  April 2019). 

³ The Invisible Lawyer, 'Notice of Motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of  Mr Justice Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India, under Article 217 read with 124(4) of the Constitution of India,  14, para [11] .  

⁴ K Shankar, 'Why Justice is delayed' The Hindu (Chennai, 2 February 2020). 

⁵ Anjana Prakash, 'The Gogoi Case and After: For the Sake of Justice, India's Judiciary Needs Urgent Reform'  The Wire (New Delhi, 4 June 2019) 

⁶ James Slack, 'Enemies of the people: Fury over "out of touch" judges who have "declared war on democracy"  by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis' Daily Mail (Essex, 4 November  2016).

⁷ PETER H. RUSSELL, Toward a General Theory of Judicial Independence, in JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE  IN THE AGE OF DEMOCRACY I (Peter H. Russell & David M. O'Brien eds., 2001).  ⁸Swart defines judicial independence as '...the ability of individual judges and the judiciary as a whole to  perform their duties free of influence or control by other actors': Mia Swart, 'Independence of the Judiciary,  Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (1 March 2019). 

⁹ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 

¹⁰ State of U.P v/s Raj Narain & Ors 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333

¹¹ INDIA CONST. art, 217, cl. 1 § 3. 

¹² The Constitution 114th Amendment Act, 2010, No. 10, Act of Parliament, 2010 (India)  ¹³ INDIA CONST. art, 124, cl.2. 

¹⁴ Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, WPC 1303 of 1987 ¹⁵ SP Gupta v/s Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365

¹⁶ INDIA CONST. art, 125, cl.2. 

¹⁷ INDIA CONST. art, 32.  

¹⁸ INDIA CONST. art, 211. 

¹⁹ Nanjundappa (B.N) v/s State of Mysore (1964), ILLJ 260 Kant 

²⁰ M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors,

²¹ 1 Id. at 14; see also Calvin R. Massey, Rule of Law and the Age of Aquarius, 41 HASTINGS L.J. 757, 760  (1990) (book review) (quoting Geoffrey de Q. Walker for the proposition that "[a]n independent judiciary is an  indispensable requirement of the rule of law") 

²² JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY, supra note 7, at 85 (discussing the twenty states with judicial salary commissions,  nine of which have the authority to issue binding salary determinations absent formal legislative branch  disapproval).

²³ See 28 U.S.C. § 453 (codifying the judicial oath). 

²⁴ For a discussion of the case and its background, see Sambhav N. Sankar, Comment, Disciplining the  Professional Judge, 88 CAL. L. REV. 1233, 1233-35 (2000).

²⁵ Ram Pratap Sharma v. Dayanand,1977 AIR 809.

²⁶ K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others, 1991 SCC (3) 655. 

²⁷ Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India & Ors, WPC 514 of 1992.