Effectiveness of Current Accountability Mechanisms
Impeachment is ineffective: It’s difficult to remove a judge through impeachment because it needs overwhelming political support.
Instead of acting as a deterrent, impeachment protects judges due to the high bar for removal.
A better alternative would be an internal, transparent mechanism within the judiciary.
Limitations in the In-House Inquiry System
The in-house inquiry system was created to protect judges from political misuse, but it lacks transparency and legal backing.
Past examples (like the Nirmal Yadav case) show that corruption cases can drag on for years with few consequences.
Experts suggest the system needs stronger procedures and possible legislative support to function effectively.
Transparency and Public Trust
There’s agreement that inquiry reports should be made public to maintain credibility.
In the Varma case, the Supreme Court acted early by releasing a video of cash recovery, avoiding speculation.
Transparency must become standard practice, not a one-off response to scandals.
Judicial Appointments and Executive Role
The current collegium system lacks transparency and gives the government informal veto power.
Some argue for reviving the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) but stress that how judges are appointed matters less than how transparently it’s done.
Publishing reasons for appointments or rejections could help rebuild trust.
Needed Reforms and Structural Changes
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2010) is seen as outdated and insufficient.
Reforms should include:
Mandatory disclosure of judges' family ties within the judiciary.
Peer review systems involving judges and lawyers to identify misconduct early.
Creating more oversight bodies won't help if they mirror the same flawed structures.
Freedom to Question the Judiciary
Current contempt laws discourage open discussion about judicial conduct.
These laws should be liberalised to allow good-faith criticism and scrutiny.
Judges should not use contempt powers to silence legitimate public concerns.
COMMENTS