🗞️ Why in News The Indian Express editorial, in the context of the NCERT textbook controversy, examines the broader question of judicial accountability — arguing that the judiciary is not immune to criticism, and meaningful reform requires structural change, not suppression of scrutiny. It references the K. Veeraswami judgment and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
The Core Argument
The editorial argues that while judicial independence is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, it cannot be conflated with judicial unaccountability. Three key tensions are examined:
1. Independence vs Accountability
| Principle | What It Means | Risk If Taken Too Far |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial independence | Judges decide cases free from executive/legislative pressure | If absolutised, it shields judges from all scrutiny — even for misconduct |
| Judicial accountability | Judges are answerable for conduct and integrity | If poorly designed, it can be used to intimidate judges into executive compliance |
The editorial argues that the two are complementary, not contradictory — a judiciary that refuses accountability ultimately undermines its own independence by eroding public trust.
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
This landmark five-judge Constitution Bench decision addressed whether judges fall within the scope of anti-corruption law:
Key Holdings
- Judges are “public servants” within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — they are not exempt
- However, the Court imposed a procedural safeguard: no criminal case can be registered against a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge without the consent of the Chief Justice of India
- This “CJI consent” requirement was meant to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases — but critics argue it has become a de facto shield against any prosecution
The Criticism
- The CJI consent requirement is extra-statutory — it is not found in the Prevention of Corruption Act itself
- It creates a situation where the head of the judiciary decides whether a member of the judiciary can be investigated — a conflict of interest
- No sitting judge has ever been convicted under anti-corruption law in India
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002)
The Bangalore Principles are an internationally recognised framework for judicial ethics, adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council:
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Independence | The judiciary shall decide matters independently, free from external influences |
| Impartiality | Judges shall perform duties without favour, bias, or prejudice |
| Integrity | Conduct must be above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer |
| Propriety | Avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities |
| Equality | Ensure equal treatment of all persons before the court |
| Competence and Diligence | Devote professional activity to judicial duties; decide matters promptly |
The editorial notes that India’s judiciary has endorsed these principles but lacks a binding domestic code of conduct for judges.
Accountability Mechanisms — Current Framework
| Mechanism | Details | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Impeachment (Art. 124(4), 217(1)(b)) | Removal by Parliament — requires special majority in both Houses | Used only once (Justice V. Ramaswami, 1993 — motion failed); practically impossible |
| In-house procedure (1999) | CJI-led committee investigates complaints against judges; can recommend resignation | Non-statutory; opaque; no public disclosure of proceedings |
| Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 | Proposed statutory mechanism; asset declaration; investigation panels | Lapsed; never enacted |
| Contempt power | Courts can punish criticism as contempt | Tends to suppress accountability rather than enable it |
The Editorial’s Recommendations
- Revive the Judicial Standards Bill — create a statutory accountability mechanism with independent investigation powers
- Mandatory asset declaration — judges should publicly declare assets (as in South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission model)
- Binding code of conduct — adopt the Bangalore Principles as a enforceable code, not just aspirational guidelines
- Reform the Collegium — the opaque appointment process (Collegium system, post-Second Judges Case 1993) undermines accountability from the point of selection
- Protect the right to criticise — defamation and contempt powers should not be used to silence legitimate public discourse about judicial performance
Ethics Dimension (GS4)
The editorial raises fundamental ethical questions:
- Institutional self-interest vs public interest — when institutions prioritise their own dignity over accountability, they serve themselves, not the public
- Power without accountability — Lord Acton’s principle applies to all institutions, including the judiciary
- Transparency as a virtue — a judiciary committed to self-correction and openness becomes a stronger guardian of justice
- Moral authority vs legal authority — the Court’s moral authority rests on its willingness to be held to the same standards it enforces on others
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: K. Veeraswami v. UOI (1991), Bangalore Principles (2002), Article 124(4) (impeachment), Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 (lapsed), Second Judges Case (1993). Mains GS2: Judicial accountability vs independence; impeachment as a remedy; Collegium system; need for statutory accountability framework. Mains GS4: Ethics in public institutions; institutional integrity; power and accountability; transparency as a value.
📌 Facts Corner — Knowledgepedia
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991):
- 5-judge Constitution Bench
- Held: judges are “public servants” under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Safeguard: CJI consent required before registering case against sitting judge
- Criticism: CJI consent requirement is extra-statutory; creates conflict of interest
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002):
- Adopted by: UN Economic and Social Council
- Six values: independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence
- India: endorsed but no binding domestic code of conduct
Judicial Accountability in India:
- Impeachment: Article 124(4) — special majority in both Houses; used once (Ramaswami, 1993 — failed)
- In-house procedure (1999): CJI-led committee; non-statutory; opaque
- Judicial Standards Bill, 2010: proposed statutory mechanism — lapsed
- No sitting judge has been convicted under anti-corruption law
Collegium System:
- Origin: Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998)
- SC Collegium: CJI + 4 senior-most judges
- NJAC (99th Amendment, 2014): struck down in Fourth Judges Case (2015)
Sources: Indian Express, LiveLaw