Loading ...

How Can the Judiciary Discipline Judges?

Why in News?

A recent incident involving a Karnataka High Court judge has raised serious concerns about the judiciary's ability to discipline its own members. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a five-member Supreme Court bench expressed alarm over objectionable comments made by Justice V. Srishananda, highlighting the need for effective mechanisms to address judicial misconduct.

Comments Made by the Karnataka HC Judge

During a court hearing, Justice Srishananda made remarks referring to a specific Bengaluru locality as being “in Pakistan,” and he also directed inappropriate comments towards a female lawyer. Although the Supreme Court eventually withdrew its intervention after the judge issued an apology, the very act of reprimanding a judge from a constitutional court is rare and underscores the growing concerns over judicial conduct. This situation reflects the urgent need for a credible system to investigate and address allegations of misconduct among judges.

Watchdog of the Judges of Constitutional Courts

The Indian Constitution, under Article 124(4), allows for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges only through a parliamentary process, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses for proved misbehavior or incapacity. This method, modeled after the systems in the UK and the US, was designed to be rarely invoked. However, the judiciary has expanded significantly since 1950, with the number of judges increasing from eight in the Supreme Court to 31, and over 750 across 21 High Courts today. This growth has not been without its issues, as more allegations of misconduct have emerged, shaking public confidence in the judiciary.

Previous Instances of Impeachment Proceedings Against Judges

Historically, there have been five impeachment attempts against judges in India:

1. Justice V. Ramaswamy (Supreme Court, 1993)

2. Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta HC, 2011)

3. Justice J.B. Pardiwala (Gujarat HC, 2015)

4. Justice C.V. Nagarjuna (HC of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, 2017)

5. CJI Justice Dipak Misra (2018)

None of these proceedings were ultimately successful, with the process being seen as cumbersome and politically charged. The only successful impeachment was that of Justice Sen, who later resigned.

The cumbersome nature of impeachment underscores the need for a more effective mechanism to address judicial misconduct before it escalates to the point of requiring removal.

Judicial Interventions to Discipline Judges

Current Practices

Currently, when allegations arise, the Chief Justice of India appoints a committee of judges to investigate. However, these committees lack the legal authority to summon evidence or conduct formal inquiries, leading to skepticism among the legal community. Even when a committee finds a judge guilty of misconduct, the Chief Justice does not have the power to remove or suspend the judge directly.

Transfer as a Disciplinary Tool

One workaround has been for the Chief Justice to transfer judges under scrutiny to different High Courts. While this can avoid immediate disciplinary action, it often leads to protests from the receiving court’s bar, concerned about harboring a potentially delinquent judge. Moreover, public criticism of judges in the media can lead to contempt of court issues, further complicating accountability.

Need for a Statutory Framework

To restore confidence in the judiciary, there is a pressing need for a statutory framework to investigate charges against judges. Such a framework would allow for responsible criticism to be addressed effectively while protecting judges from unfounded allegations. The United States has a model that could serve as a blueprint. The Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 allows federal judges to be investigated by their peers, ensuring independence while holding them accountable.

In the U.S., complaints about judicial conduct can be made to a Chief Judge of a Judicial Council. If deemed serious, they are investigated by a special committee of judges. Depending on the findings, actions can range from public censure to referral for impeachment, with confidentiality maintained throughout the process. This model has proven effective in facilitating informal resolutions and maintaining judicial integrity.

Recommendations for India

I strongly advocate for the establishment of a similar system in India, allowing for the investigation of judicial misconduct by a peer body. This would not only enable appropriate action to be taken against errant judges but also reassure the public and legal community that complaints are handled lawfully and fairly.

In 2006, a Judges (Inquiry) Bill was introduced, modeled after the U.S. Judicial Council Act, but it failed to pass due to concerns about a committee composed solely of judges conducting investigations. This perspective overlooks the effectiveness of peer review in maintaining judicial standards. A focused bill addressing the need for an investigative mechanism into judicial conduct is urgently needed.

The Law Minister has announced a forthcoming Judges Standards and Accountability Bill, which is expected to include provisions for judges to disclose assets and establish standards of conduct. However, it may be more beneficial to start with a simple and direct bill focused specifically on investigating misconduct, as proposed in the 2006 Bill.

In summary, a robust framework for addressing judicial misconduct is essential for maintaining public trust in the higher judiciary, ensuring accountability, and protecting the integrity of the legal system in India.