Q. 2. A massive fire at the official residence of a sitting High Court judge uncovers bundles of charred currency notes amounting to several crores. Preliminary investigations suggest a serious case of financial misconduct, triggering nationwide outrage. A Supreme Court-appointed panel recommends initiating impeachment proceedings, putting the spotlight squarely on the integrity of the higher judiciary.
This incident has sparked a fierce debate. While the legal community defends the sanctity and independence of the judiciary as essential to democracy, civil society, media, and common citizens demand immediate action and structural reforms to prevent such breaches of public trust. Many view this as a symptom of a deeper systemic issue, not merely an isolated moral failure.
The Ministry of Law and Justice is now under pressure to institutionalize a credible framework that ensures accountability while preserving the independence of judges. As a senior bureaucrat, your role involves reconciling competing concerns: respecting judicial autonomy as guaranteed under the Constitution while reinforcing mechanisms of integrity, transparency, and public confidence.
Questions
What ethical values and constitutional principles are at stake in this situation?
How can the judiciary be held accountable without undermining its independence?
As a senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Law and Justice, what should be your course of action to address this issue institutionally and ethically? (250 words, 20 marks)
Introduction
A recent incident involving a sitting High Court judge has raised serious concerns about judicial accountability. While maintaining the independence of the judiciary remains paramount, it is equally important to strengthen institutional mechanisms that uphold public trust, transparency, and constitutional integrity.
Body
a. Ethical Values and Constitutional Principles at Stake
This situation touches the heart of public ethics, constitutional morality, and institutional trust.
Judicial Integrity: Judges must uphold the highest moral standards. Misconduct by a judge violates the very foundation of the justice system.
Rule of Law (Article 14): Corruption in the judiciary erodes the idea that no one is above the law, a basic feature of the Constitution.
Separation of Powers (Articles 50 and 121): While judicial independence must be preserved, unchecked power without accountability is dangerous.
Public Confidence: Faith in the judiciary is essential for democratic legitimacy. Scandals damage trust in justice as a whole.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Judges should act only in ways they expect others to act universally. Corruption violates this basic moral duty.
Constitutional Morality: As per Dr. Ambedkar, constitutional morality requires that institutions function within ethical boundaries, not just legality.
b. Ensuring Judicial Accountability Without Undermining Independence
Balancing fairness and scrutiny is key to a credible justice system.
Due Process (Article 124(4)): Any action must follow legal procedures like those under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, ensuring a fair hearing.
Internal Peer Accountability: The judiciary can lead internal checks through in-house procedures and Chief Justices’ oversight.
Transparency in Collegium: Making appointments and promotions open to review can filter out unethical candidates.
Strengthening Impeachment Process: Retain the high bar but improve timelines and procedure for action on serious misconduct.
Code of Ethics and Asset Disclosure: Require judges to follow a code of ethics and submit annual declarations—confidential if needed.
Judicial Independence as a Means: Independence should protect honest functioning, not be used as a shield for wrongdoing.
c. Course of Action as a Senior Bureaucrat in the Ministry of Law and Justice
As a senior bureaucrat, one must respond decisively, but in a balanced and constitutionally sound manner.
Initiate Inter-Ministerial Consultation: Coordinate with the judiciary, legal experts, and civil society to frame consensus-based reforms that respect institutional boundaries.
Draft a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Revive and refine the earlier draft legislation to include mechanisms like time-bound inquiries and an independent oversight body.
Propose a Judicial Complaints Authority: Recommend a statutory authority modeled on the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, comprising retired judges and independent members.
Policy Note on Asset Disclosure and Code of Conduct: Prepare a confidential draft policy for mandatory asset declarations and adoption of a code of ethics for higher judiciary.
Build Parliamentary and Judicial Support: Engage key parliamentary committees and judicial leadership through closed-door discussions to ensure political will and legal feasibility.
Public Assurance through Media Communication: Coordinate with the Press Information Bureau (PIB) to release transparent yet respectful communication to restore public trust.
Benchmarking Global Best Practices: Include comparative models like the U.S. Judicial Conference, Canada’s Judicial Council etc in the framework proposal.
Submit a Time-bound Action Plan to the Minister: Prepare a phased roadmap with deadlines, legal implications, and institutional safeguards, ensuring proactive rather than reactive governance.
Conclusion
This case demands a firm, lawful, and ethical response. As a senior bureaucrat, your course of action must balance judicial independence with public accountability—ensuring institutional integrity without politicization or executive overreach.
