Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence

Context

The report of the inquiry committee instituted against former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, due to his resignation, has brought the issue of judicial accountability and whether judges can escape impeachment under the law by resigning to the fore.

Key Highlights

• The Yashwant Varma case has shed light on India’s system of judicial accountability.
• While Justice Varma had stepped down during the impeachment proceedings, the move to present the report from the inquiry committee has triggered interesting constitutional and legal issues.
• This is a question of whether proceedings commenced to look into judicial misconduct should automatically be ended when a judge resigns.

Background of the Case

• Curiously, some burnt and partly damaged currency notes have been found in the office residence of Justice Varma in New Delhi.
• An in-house investigation by the Supreme Court of India reportedly shows that he was found to be guilty.
• A motion for his impeachment was put forward by over 146 MPs.
• A three-member committee was set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate allegations against the Judges.
• Justice Varma had to resign before the end of the inquiry.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 217

  • The High Court judge can resign from his office by giving a written resignation to the President of India.
  • According to the 1978 Supreme Court ruling, resignation is a “unilateral proceeding” and doesn’t need to be accepted.

• Removal of Judges

  • The Supreme Courts and High Courts have judges whose removal from office is possible only on the grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, by a special majority of the Parliament.
  • The investigation takes place pursuant to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, before the consideration of Parliament of a motion for impeachment.

What makes the Case significant?

• Judicial Accountability

  • The question of the case is whether judges should have the option of not facing public critique or constitutional accountability when they resign.
  • It points out that there are no specific legal rules in place on inquiries following resignation.

• Public Confidence

  • Publicizing the inquiry report helps to ensure transparency and increases citizens’ confidence in the judiciary.
  • It reiterates the need for judicial independence and accountability.

• Financial Implications

  • Generally, judges who refuse to serve are entitled to a pension and post-pension benefits upon their resignation.
  • Whereas, when there is a finding of misconduct, the question of how public money was spent on such benefits arises.

Key Issues

• Previous judicial precedents, like those of P. D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen, have had impeachment processes expire after judges’ resignations.
• Lawyers say these precedents allow judges to “get away with it.
• The present case might redefine how India looks into judicial misconduct investigations.

Significance for Governance

• Improves accountability of institutions in the judicial system.
• Promotes the democratic principles of transparency and integrity in the constitution.
• Enforces good stewardship of taxpayer-funded judicial institutions.
• Builds public confidence in democratic governance.

Way Forward

• Make it clear by law whether or not judicial investigations are to be continued after the resignation.
• Differentiate between investigation of misconduct and removal from office.
• Appoint an independent and permanent judicial control body.
• Provide public access to inquiry reports and respect due process.
• Provide links between pensionary/Post pensionary benefits and judicial misconduct through appropriate legal safeguards.
• Strike a balance between judicial independence and effective accountability systems to maintain public trust.

Conclusion

• The Justice Yashwant Varma case has raised an important constitutional debate with regard to judicial accountability in the country.
• The resignation of a judge does not necessarily mean that inquiries into allegations of misconduct are stopped, but must not be if the judge resigns.
• Increasing transparency and accountability and protecting the independence of judges are key to building the credibility of Indian constitutional institutions.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains PYQ

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)

Download as PDF