What is Judicial Accountability?

Judicial accountability refers to the principle that judges must take responsibility for their decisions and
actions. It ensures transparency in decision-making and mandates judges to act within the framework of the
law, upholding the trust vested in them by society.
Provisions for Judicial Accountability:
1. Constitutional Provisions:
a) Article 124(4) and 124(5): Allows impeachment of Supreme Court judges for proven misbehavior
or incapacity.
b) Article 217: Impeachment of High Court judges based on similar grounds.
c) Article 235: Empowers High Courts to control and supervise subordinate courts.
d) Restatement of Judicial Values (1997): Acts as a code of conduct for higher judiciary members.
2. Legal Provisions:
a) Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Establishes a mechanism to investigate misconduct through a three -
member panel.
b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Ensures that judiciary functions independently without undue
influence.
c) Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (pending): Aims to enhance transparency in judicial
conduct and strengthen oversight mechanisms.
3. Need for Judicial Accountability:
a) Ensuring Public Trust: Upholding the credibility of the judiciary and maintaining citizens’
confidence in the legal system.
b) Preventing Misconduct: Ensures that judges adhere to ethical standards and constitutional
principles.
c) Enhancing Transparency: Judicial decisions should be open to scrutiny to promote fairness.
d) Balancing Independence and Responsibility: Prevents misuse of judicial independence for
personal or political interests.
e) Promoting Rule of Law: Ensures decisions are unbiased, equitable, and in line with constitutional
mandates.
4. Examples of Judicial Accountability:
1) Justice Soumitra Sen’s Impeachment (2011): Found guilty of financial misconduct as a court-appointed
receiver, showcasing accountability through parliamentary processes.
2) Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s Resignation (2011): Resigned amid allegations of land grabbing and
corruption, highlighting the role of public scrutiny in judicial conduct.
3) RTI and Judiciary (2020): Supreme Court upheld the applicability of RTI to itself, ensuring transparency
and accountability in judicial appointments and decisions.
4) In the case of S.P. Gupta v Union of India, the Supreme Court concurred that the judiciary must respond
to inquiries from the public regarding the choices it makes on behalf of the public. The Constitution’s
Article 19(1)(a) grants the public this right.
5) In the case of K. Veeraswami v Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal investigation
could not be launched against a superior court judge without the Chief Justice of India’s formal consent.
Judge Veeraswami possessed assets that were wildly out of proportion to his salary. It has been extremely
uncommon for a judge to be the subject of an investigation since this ruling.
The possibility that meddling with independence may be required shows that other goals, like fair and unbiased
trials, are more crucial than the former and can only be fulfilled by an accountable court. Instead of being seen
as an end in and of itself, independence should be seen as a means to an end. If responsibility is not given due
consideration, we might witness a dangerous coalition of dishonest judges and politicians that will destroy
democracy. The unique characteristics of the position demand distinct handling, which is carried out for the
benefit of the nation. Remembering that the judiciary is subject to a different standard of accountability than
the other two organs is also essential.
5. Challenges to Judicial Accountability:
a) Impeachment Complexity: The current impeachment process is cumbersome, requiring a two -
thirds majority in Parliament.
b) Limited Oversight Mechanisms: Lack of robust external mechanisms to monitor judicial
behaviour.
c) Independence Concerns: Excessive accountability measures may threaten judicial independence.
d) Resignations Before Proceedings: Judges resigning to avoid inquiries hinder the accountability
process.
e) Lack of Transparency: Closed-door deliberations reduce public trust in judicial proceedings.
Way Ahead:
a) Legislative Reforms: Expedite the passage of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill for
structured oversight.
b) Strengthening Internal Mechanisms: Develop independent judicial review bodies to monitor
conduct.
c) Codifying Ethical Guidelines: Expand and enforce the Restatement of Judicial Values.
d) Public Scrutiny: Enhance transparency through regular publication of judgments and judicial
activities.
e) Training and Awareness: Conduct regular ethical training for judges to ensure adherence to
constitutional principles.
Conclusion:
Judicial accountability is pivotal for preserving the judiciary’s independence and integrity. Transparent
mechanisms and institutional reforms are vital to reinforce public trust and ensure that justice delivery aligns
with democratic principles
NATIONAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT COMMISSION
1. Introduction: The 99th Amendment Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 which established the National
Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) and the NJAC Act, was passed by Parliament in 2014.

2. The NJAC Act, 2014

a) This Act provides for a transparent and broad-based process of selection of Judges of the Supreme
Court and High Courts replacing the collegium system.
b) This Act provides for the insertion of Articles 124A, 124B and 124C to the Constitution of India, 1950
(COI).
Article 124A of the COI
 This Article deals with the composition of the NJAC. It states that -
(1) There shall be a Commission to be known as the National Judicial Appointments
Commission consisting of the following, namely: —
(a) The Chief Justice of India as the ex officio chairperson.
(b) Two other senior Judges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice of India as the ex officio members.
(c) The Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice as the ex officio member.
(d) Two eminent persons to be nominated by the committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice
of India and the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People or where there is no such Leader of
Opposition, then, the Leader of single largest Opposition Party in the House of the People as members.
Provided that one of the eminent person shall be nominated from amongst the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities or Women.
Provided further that an eminent person shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible
for renomination.
(2) No act or proceedings of the National Judicial Appointments Commission shall be questioned or be
invalidated merely on the ground of the existence of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the
Commission.
Article 124B of the COI
a) This Article deals with the functions of NJAC.
b) It states that it shall be the duty of the National Judicial Appointments Commission to—
1. Recommend persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief
Justices of High Courts and other Judges of High Courts.
2. Recommend transfer of Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts from one High Court to any other
High Court.
3. To ensure that the person recommended is of ability and integrity.
Article 124C of the COI
a) This Article deals with the power of parliament to make law.
b) It states that the parliament may, by law, regulate the procedure for the appointment of Chief Justice of
India and other Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts and
empower the Commission to lay down by regulations the procedure for the discharge of its functions, the
manner of selection of persons for appointment and such other matters as may be considered necessary by
it.
Constitutionality of NJAC
1. In 2015, the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates o-Record Association and Anr. v.
Union of India declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014
as unconstitutional and null and void.
2. It was contended that both the acts were unconstitutional and invalid.
3. It argued that the 99th Amendment Act which provided for the creation of the NJAC took away the primacy
of the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court
of India” as their collective recommendation could be vetoed or suspended by majority of three non-Judge
members.
4. It stated that the Amendment severely damaged the basic structure of the Constitution of which the
independence of the judiciary in appointing judges of the higher judiciary was an integral part.
5. It also contended that the NJAC Act was itself void and ultra vires of the Constitution
6. The verdict brought back the primacy of the collegium system of judges appointing judges.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Meaning of Judicial Activism

1. Origin of Judicial Activism: The concept of judicial activism was first coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in
1947, originating in the USA.
2. In India, the doctrine of judicial activism was introduced in the mid-1970s by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer,
P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and D.A. Desai.
3. Definition of Judicial Activism: The active role of the judiciary in upholding the rights of citizens and
preserving the constitutional and legal system of the country is known as judicial activism.
4. Proactive Role of the Judiciary: It denotes the proactive role played by the judiciary for the protection of
the rights of citizens and promotion of justice in the society.
5. Judicial Obligation: It implies that the role of the judiciary is to force the other two organs of the
government i.e. legislature and executive to do its constitutional obligation.
6. Judicial Dynamism: It is also known as “judicial dynamism”.
7. Comparison with Judicial Restraint: It works oppositely compared to “judicial restraint”, which means
that the self-control is exercised by the judiciary.

Significance of Judicial Activism

1. Exercise of Judicial Power: It is a way of exercising judicial power which motivates judges to depart from
normally practised strict adherence to judicial precedent in favour of progressive and new social policies
2. Protection and Expansion of Individual Rights: It is the practice to protect or expand individual
rights through decisions that move away from established precedent to have constitutional or legislative
intent.
3. Active Interpretation for Social Betterment: It denotes an active interpretation of earlier legislation
made by a judge to enhance the utility of that law for social betterment.
4. Philosophy of Judicial Decision-Making: It is a philosophy of judicial decision-making where judges are
allowed for their personal views about public policy for guidance to others.
5. Evolution of Legal Principles: It helps to evolve new principles, concepts, maxims, formulae and relief to
do justice .
6. Relation to Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Judicial activism is closely related to the concept of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL).
Need for Judicial Activism

1. Failure of the Executive and Legislature: The failure of the executive and legislatures to deliver the desired
results.
2. Rampant Corruption and Human Rights Violations: Rampant corruption and violation of basic human
rights through the government agencies.
3. Ineffectiveness of the System: It occurs because the entire system has been plagued by ineffectiveness and
inactiveness.
4. Degradation of Democratic Principles: Due to the misuse and abuse of some of the provisions of the
Constitution. The principles of democracy were continuously degrading.
5. Judiciary’s Role in Preventing Democracy’s Compromise: In such a scenario, the judiciary was forced to
play an active role.
6. It was possible only through an institution like judiciary which is vested with powers to correct the various
wrongs in society.
7. In order to prevent the compromise of democracy, the Supreme Court and High Courts took the
responsibility of solving these problems.

Cases Associated with Judicial Activism

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

2. I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs. (1967)
3. Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
4. Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar (1979)
5. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)

Differences Between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: The concept of judicial review and judicial
activism seems closely related to each other, but there are certain differences between them which we can see
from the following table.
Basis Judicial Review Judicial Activism
 It interprets the Constitution to deal
 It is the process where the judiciary reviews
with contemporary issues.
Definition the validity of laws passed by the
 The Judiciary uses its authority so it is
legislature, so it is called a Judicial Review.
called Judicial Activism.
 It reviews the laws which are  It has the power to overrule any acts or
Goals
against Fundamental Rights. decisions.
 It reviews the validity of the laws under  It is the use of Judicial authority to
Intent
Article 13. enforce what is essential for society.
 Judges use their power especially
 Judge uses the power to protect
Power when constitutional bodies are not
and enforce Fundamental Rights.
acting properly.
 Mechanisms which have no
 Striking down of the Section 66A of the IT
constitutional backing i.e. suo-
Example Act as it was against the Fundamental
motto (on its own cases) PIL, new
Rights guaranteed by the Constitution
doctrines

Justification of Judicial Activism

1. Reasons for Judicial Activism According to Dr. B.L. Wadehra: As per Dr. B.L. Wadehra, judicial
activism happens due to the following reasons:
a. Due to the collapse of the responsible government
b. The citizens expect protection of their rights and freedoms from the judiciary
c. The judges encourage the Public Interest Litigation and relaxing the principles of ‘Locus
Standi’ to participate in the social reforms
2. Instances of Judicial Overreach According to Subhash Kashyap: Similarly, Subhash Kashyap finds
out certain events which happens when the judiciary overstep from its normal jurisdiction and intervene
in areas which falls under the domain of the legislature and the executive
3. Legislature fails to discharge its responsibilities.
4. In the event of a ‘hung’ legislature when the government is unable to take decisions on certain crucial
matters due to political considerations.
5. Political unwillingness to take honest and hard decisions.
6. When the legislature and executive fails to protect the basic rights of citizens, like the right to live a
decent life
7. When the court of law is misused by a strong authoritarian parliamentary party government
8. Also when the courts become victims of weaknesses of craze for populism and publicity.
9. Judicial Activism According to Dr. Vandana: According to Dr. Vandana, judicial activism can be seen
from the following aspects,
a) Enhancement of the right to be heard in the administrative procedure.
b) No limitation for Excessive delegation
c) Judicial control over discretionary powers.
d) Judicial review over the administration.
e) Encouragement of Open government
f) Excessive use of power of Contempt.
g) Exercise of jurisdiction when non-exist.
h) Excessive interpretation of rules in its search to achieve economic, social and educational objectives.