What are the challenges regarding judicial accountability in India?
India’s democracy prides itself on its judiciary, which is the bedrock of maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. But in recent years, questions have been raised about the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. Recently, the news of a huge amount of cash found at the house of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Verma created a stir across the country. This incident has once again sparked a debate on judicial corruption and lack of accountability. People are asking whether judges, who deliver justice to others, are themselves above the law? This article examines the state of judicial accountability in India, its challenges, shortcomings of existing systems, and suggested steps for improvement. Also, it explains why transparency and accountability are important and what India can learn from other countries of the world.
1. What do people think about the judiciary?
Most people in India believe that there is corruption in the judiciary. According to the “India Today Survey”, 85% of people say that there is some level of corruption in the judiciary, and 48% believe that it is deeply ingrained. Only 8% people consider it corruption-free. This perception has persisted for many years and some major incidents have strengthened it further. The recent incident, in which a huge amount of cash was found at the house of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Verma, has created anger and concern among the people. Such reports raise the question whether corruption has become a part of the judiciary.
There have been many such incidents in the past. In 2011, Judge Soumitra Sen was accused of misusing money. The Rajya Sabha initiated impeachment proceedings against him, but he resigned before the process in the Lok Sabha. In 2009, the “cash-at-judge-door” case of Judge Nirmal Yadav came to light, in which he was accused of sending cash to his house. Apart from this, former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan and his son Prashant Bhushan claimed in 2009 that many former Chief Justices of India were corrupt. The lack of transparent investigation or punishment in these cases breaks people’s trust. People want that the allegations against the judges should be investigated impartially and the public should know the truth.
2. Why is judicial accountability necessary?
Judicial accountability is a vital part of democracy. It ensures that the law is followed, judges do not commit any wrongdoing, and people have faith in the judiciary. Former Supreme Court judge P.N. Bhagwati said that judges should be accountable not to any political party but to the millions of poor people of India whose rights are often taken away. The Supreme Court has also said that “a single dishonest judge tarnishes the image of the entire judiciary.”
Judicial independence and accountability are interlinked. Independence means that judges can make impartial decisions without any pressure. But it does not mean that they can do anything. Their independence rests on the trust of the public. If the integrity of judges is questioned, this trust breaks. Therefore, accountability is necessary so that judges remain accountable to the people. Transparency increases accountability, as it gives the public an opportunity to scrutinise the work of judges. True independence exists only when judges are accountable to the public, not when they are free from scrutiny.
3. What are the arrangements for accountability?
There are two main methods for accountability of judges in India:
-
Impeachment Process : This happens under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. For this, 100 MPs of Lok Sabha or 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha have to sign a resolution. Then a three-member committee investigates. If the judge is found guilty, he can be removed by a two-thirds majority in both the houses of Parliament.
Problems : This process is very long and complicated. Politics has an impact on it. For example, impeachment was started against Judge V. Ramaswami, but it failed due to some MPs not voting. Many MPs are afraid to sign a resolution against judges, because they may have their own cases pending in the court. -
Internal mechanism : The Supreme Court has created an internal process where complaints against judges are dealt with by the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. If the complaint is serious, an internal committee investigates.
Problems : The process lacks transparency. Information about complaints and their outcomes is not available to the public. Sometimes even complainants are not told what happened to the investigation. It has no legal sanction, which can lead to uneven outcomes.
In addition, higher courts can review decisions of lower courts, but there is no independent external body that checks the conduct of judges. Sometimes judges resign after allegations, as was discussed in the case of Judge Yashwant Verma, but this process is not transparent. This erodes public trust.
4. What is the problem with the system of appointment of judges?
In India, judges are appointed through the collegium system , in which senior judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts together select new judges. There are many problems with this system:
- No external oversight : Appointments are made solely by judges. There is no role for the government or any outside agency. This is called the “uncle judge syndrome”, which is prone to favoritism, nepotism, or favouritism.
- Lack of transparency : The appointment process is secret. People do not know how the judges were selected.
- Lack of merit : There are no clear criteria for merit, which leads to the possibility of bias in selection.
- Delay in appointments : In this system, appointments are made late, which increases the backlog of cases in the court.
- Lack of checks and balances : This system concentrates power in the judiciary, which is against the principle of balance of the Constitution.
In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional. The NJAC was an attempt to involve the government and others in appointments, which was passed by Parliament with a huge majority. But the court considered it against independence, dashing hopes of reform.
5. What are the suggestions for improvement?
There are several suggestions to enhance judicial accountability and transparency:
- Independent Monitoring Committee : A National Judicial Monitoring Committee should be formed, which should consist of retired judges, legal experts, and respected people. It will investigate complaints impartially and increase public confidence.
- Reform the impeachment process : Make it faster and more transparent. There should be a time limit on the investigation and the results should be made public.
- Disclosure of assets of judges : Judges should make public the information about their assets and liabilities every year. This should be verified by an independent body or the media so that the possibility of corruption is reduced. The Supreme Court gave this order in 2025, but it is necessary to give it a legal form.
- Strengthening internal mechanisms : The internal investigation process should be made transparent. The results of complaints should be made public, without compromising confidentiality.
- Code of Ethics : There should be a clear code of ethics for judges, including rules on conduct and conflict of interest.
- Performance Evaluation : Judges’ decisions and conduct should be reviewed periodically, but confidentiality should be maintained.
- Whistleblower protection : People who complain about wrongdoings by judges, such as court staff or others, should be protected so they can speak out without fear.
6. Why is transparency important?
Transparency, especially disclosure of assets of judges, is very important to increase public trust. According to the “India Today Survey”, 85% of people consider lack of transparency as a major cause of corruption. In 2025, the Supreme Court ordered the disclosure of judges’ assets, which came after the case of Judge Yashwant Verma. If people know what assets judges have, they trust that judges are not earning money illegally. The 2002 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct also say that transparency increases public trust. Without transparency, as in the case of Judge Verma, people are suspicious and the image of the judiciary is tarnished. A 2023 parliamentary committee report also said that disclosure of judges’ assets is low, which should be made mandatory.
7. What are the risks of strict liability?
Strict accountability is necessary, but it also carries some risks:
- Threat to judicial independence : If rules are too strict or the government misuses them, judges may be afraid to make fair decisions. The Supreme Court blocked a decision of the Lokpal, which talked about bringing judges under its purview.
- Political interference : Mechanisms like impeachment can be influenced by politics. The case of Judge V. Ramaswami is an example of this, where the process failed due to political reasons.
- Loss of public trust : If judges are constantly under scrutiny, people may think the judiciary is weak or always under suspicion.
- Hassle : Without clear rules, judges can be unnecessarily harassed, such as with repeated RTI queries. Without protection, asset disclosures can create problems for judges.
8. What else can we learn from India?
India’s accountability system lags behind many countries. Here are some comparisons and lessons:
- External oversight : In the UK and the US, independent bodies scrutinise judges. In India, there are mostly internal mechanisms, which are less transparent. The NJAC was an attempt in this direction, but it was held unconstitutional. In the US, the Senate discusses and confirms the names of judges.
- Asset disclosure : In the US, judges are required to disclose their assets under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but there are strict rules to prevent abuse. India has a recent rule in place in 2025, but it needs legal force and protection.
- India must create a system that balances independence and accountability. Independent oversight, transparent appointments, and strong internal mechanisms can bring India closer to global standards.
