A Crisis of Accountability in the Indian Judiciary

The judiciary, as the protector of constitutional ideals and adjudicator of justice, holds a pivotal role in India’s democratic structure. The credibility and efficacy directly impact public confidence in governance and the rule of law. Recent developments concerning the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court have highlighted a significant issue: the lack of clear accountability systems for judges, particularly in instances of erroneous or questionable rulings. The dispute surrounding Justice Prashant Kumar’s ruling in 2023, along with the Supreme Court’s subsequent reaction, highlights the institutional frictions and accountability issues that compromise the judiciary’s independence.

The Case that Sparked the Debate

• In 2023, a petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court for outstanding payments from a textile company.
• Rather than following the conventional civil litigation route, a process burdened with about 4.4 million ongoing civil cases in India, Justice Prashant Kumar permitted criminal proceedings against the firm. The atypical judicial trajectory raised concerns within the judiciary.
• On appeal, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court not only reversed the order but also reprimanded Justice Kumar. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was instructed to assign Justice Kumar exclusively to non-criminal cases, and only in the presence of a senior judge.
• The Allahabad High Court perceived this ruling as an infringement on its administrative autonomy.
• Protests arose within the High Court, leading the Supreme Court to rescind its penalties while continuing to critique Justice Kumar’s rationale.
• This series of events highlighted the unsolved conflict between judicial correction and judicial administration, revealing a crisis of accountability within the Indian court.

Constitutional Dimensions of Judicial Accountability

The Constitution of India outlines a system of separation of powers and designates the court as an independent entity.  Two provisions are very pertinent to this discourse:

• Article 141– States that the legal principles established by the Supreme Court are binding for all courts in India, granting the Court jurisprudential oversight.
• Articles 225 and 145 grant administrative authority to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, respectively, to govern their own procedures and operations.

• The Supreme Court’s administrative oversight over the High Courts is not constitutionally required.  The Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts, commonly known as the “Masters of the Roster,” possess considerable discretion in case assignment, bench management, and administrative governance.
• The absence of established norms in this area has resulted in circumstances where administrative discretion may be confused with judicial independence, leading to internal power struggles within the judiciary.

Crisis of Administrative Authority and Judicial Independence

• The reprimand of Justice Kumar was distinctive as it not only rectified a judicial misjudgment but also aimed to govern a judge’s administrative authority.
• Historically, higher courts have annulled orders due to misapplication of law or facts; however, they have rarely reprimanded individual judges with administrative constraints.
• This prompts questions:

1. 1. Who is responsible for holding judges accountable for their mistakes?
   2. Should the Supreme Court intervene directly in the administration of the High Court?

• Events such as the 2019 news conference involving four senior Supreme Court justices, who condemned the case distribution by the then Chief Justice of India, illustrate that unregulated administrative authority can create divisions within the judiciary.
• The episode with Justice Kumar introduces an additional aspect: the potential for judicial overreach into the administrative spheres of High Courts, resulting in institutional discord.

Training, Knowledge-Sharing, and Structural Reforms

• The episode also underscores systemic deficiencies in judicial training. Although district-level judges undergo sporadic training, High Court judges seldom engage in organised programs or peer-review processes.
• This results in a deficiency in group learning and reflection, rendering individual judges susceptible to legal and discretionary errors.
• A potential approach is institutionalising regular training, peer dialogues, and knowledge-sharing forums, enabling High Court justices to examine rulings, exchange thoughts, and enhance their comprehension.
• Such approaches will achieve equilibrium by enhancing judicial competence while maintaining the administrative independence of High Courts.

The Role of the Judiciary in Maintaining Public Confidence

• The judiciary’s primary function is to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.
• In this instance, although institutional tensions prevailed in public discourse, the situation of the petitioner requesting overdue payments was overlooked.
• The irony is pronounced: discussions on judicial accountability eclipsed the citizen whose rights were jeopardised.
• To uphold legitimacy, the court must prioritise the administration of justice to citizens over internal power struggles. Public trust is bolstered by both unbiased decision-making and transparent, efficient operations.

The Indian Judiciary in the Global Context

• The Indian judiciary operates in conjunction with other institutions. Worldwide, courts contend with the intricate equilibrium between independence and accountability.
• In the United States, federal judges possess life tenure but may be impeached for misbehaviour. Nonetheless, administrative oversight continues to be predominantly decentralised.
• The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the United Kingdom manages complaints against judges, promoting accountability while refraining from influencing judicial decisions.
• Canada: The Canadian Judicial Council examines claims of misconduct involving federally appointed judges.
• In contrast, India lacks a strong, independent regulatory authority.
• The sole constitutional method for judicial accountability is impeachment, as outlined in Articles 124(4) and 217, which is hardly employed due to its political intricacies.
• The lack of intermediate accountability mechanisms (except impeachment) renders the system significantly dependent on internal judicial discipline, frequently leading to conflicts like as the Justice Kumar incident.
• Consequently, situating the Indian court in the international context highlights the pressing necessity for defined frameworks that reconcile accountability with independence.
• In the absence of such reforms, India risks sustaining a system in which judges possess significant administrative power without sufficient oversight.

Way Forward

• The situation with Justice Prashant Kumar, the Supreme Court, and the Allahabad High Court transcends a singular, flawed ruling; it reflects a broader crisis of responsibility inside the judiciary.
• The Supreme Court’s attempt to rectify judicial error underscored persistent constitutional conflicts about administrative authority.
• To protect judicial independence while guaranteeing accountability, India must implement systematic reforms:

1. 1. Formulating clear guidelines for administrative decision-making.
   2. Implementing ongoing judicial education programs.
   3. Establishing autonomous accountability frameworks without resorting to impeachment.

• Ultimately, the judiciary must recognise that its fundamental purpose is to serve the persons who pursue justice.
• Internal conflicts about authority must not overshadow the requirements of litigants.
• A court that is honest, accountable, and efficient is essential for upholding the promise of justice as established in the Constitution of India and for maintaining its respect within the world community.

Sharing is caring!