Background
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court delivered a speech at an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad that reflected bias against the Muslim community, raising concerns about judicial accountability in India.
The event took place within the court precincts, raising questions about the appropriateness of such an event being held in a judicial setting.
Judicial Accountability Mechanism
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 allows for judicial accountability through a three-member committee formed to investigate "misbehaviour or incapacity" of judges.
3 member committee : Supreme Court judge, a CJI of a High Court & an eminent jurist
This process is triggered by a motion in Parliament (either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) and requires approval by the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Vice-President (Rajya Sabha).
The committee’s findings are based on Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution.
Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution deals with the removal of judges of the Supreme Court
Article 124(5) complements Article 124(4) and provides the procedure for the impeachment of a judge.
Article 217 : Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court
Article 218 : The provisions of clauses (4) and (5) of article 124 shall apply in relation to a High Court as they apply in relation to the Supreme Court with the substitution of references to the High Court for references to the Supreme Court.
Historical Cases of Judicial Misconduct
Justice V. Ramaswami: Found guilty of misuse of public funds for personal luxuries but was not impeached due to lack of Parliamentary support.
His removal motion failed despite a finding of guilt (1993).
Justice Soumitra Sen: Found guilty of misappropriating funds, resigned before the impeachment motion could proceed (2011).
Justice P.D. Dinakaran: Resigned after facing charges of land grabbing, aborting the impeachment process (2011).
Challenges to Accountability
Judges enjoy greater immunity than elected officials, allowing them to resign and avoid accountability.
Even when guilt is established, judges like Ramaswami continued holding prestigious positions post-retirement (e.g., Tamil Nadu Law Commission).
Need for Reform
Investigation into judicial misconduct should continue even if a judge resigns to prevent abuse of power.
The Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) stresses that impeachment is about restoring public trust and not just removing a judge from office.
Conclusion
The current judicial accountability system is flawed, and judges can escape scrutiny by resigning.
There is an urgent need to strengthen oversight and close loopholes to ensure that judicial misconduct does not go unchecked, preserving the integrity of India’s judiciary.
COMMENTS