Q. 15. What are the constitutional provisions and legal frameworks that govern the removal and accountability of judges in India? Why have they proven inadequate in curbing judicial corruption? (250 words, 15 marks)
Introduction
Judicial accountability is crucial for public trust, yet current mechanisms—like the slow impeachment process and opaque in-house inquiries—often fail. The ongoing HC judge cash row underscores the urgent need for transparent, reformed oversight
Body
Constitutional and Legal Provisions:
Article 124(4) and (5): Provide for removal of Supreme Court judges by impeachment, requiring a special majority in both Houses on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. • Article 217(1)(b): Applies the same procedure for removal of High Court judges. • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Lays down the procedure for investigation following a motion in Parliament, including setting up an inquiry committee.
In-House Procedure (1997): Evolved by the judiciary to deal with complaints against judges, though it lacks statutory backing.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Prevents public discussion of judicial misconduct, limiting media scrutiny.
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010: Introduced to create a more robust framework but never enacted.
→ While these provisions aim to preserve judicial independence, they are procedurally complex and politically sensitive, leading to near-zero removals.
Why They Are Inadequate:
High threshold: Only one judge, Justice Soumitra Sen, faced near-removal before resigning in 2011. No judge has been impeached since independence, making the process largely symbolic and ineffective.
Lack of transparency:: In-house inquiries, like in the Justice S.N. Shukla case, lack transparency and public accountability. There’s also no statutory body for citizens to lodge complaints against judges.
Judicial resistance: Strong opposition from the judiciary to any external oversight, citing independence concerns.
No independent complaints body: No statutory mechanism for citizens to file grievances against judges.
Misuse of contempt powers: Cases like Prashant Bhushan’s 2020 conviction show how contempt powers can suppress legitimate criticism, deterring public scrutiny and weakening democratic checks on the judiciary.
Conclusion
Judicial accountability needs urgent reform. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer said, judges should be held to the same high standards they expect from others—making transparent laws and fair oversight essential to protect public trust.
