About How SC Deals With Errant Judges: UPSC Current Affairs

Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/sensitive-inputs-delaying-appointments-of-chief-justices-of-high-courts-centre-to-supreme-court-2599902-2024-09-14

Context:

A bench of the five senior-most Supreme Court judges, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), "expressed serious concern" over statements made by a Karnataka High Court Justice.

Details

Recently, a Karnataka High Court judge made some controversial comments during court hearings. In one case, he referred to a certain area in Bengaluru as being “in Pakistan”. In another case, he made an inappropriate comment towards a female lawyer. These comments attracted attention because judges are expected to act professionally and with respect.

What are the Potential Steps Supreme Court can take in the case?

The Supreme Court may issue a public censure of the remarks or lay down guidelines for judicial conduct, particularly in the era of social media. Such guidelines, however, would only serve as future standards for behavior and not retroactively affect this case.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) can initiate an in-house inquiry. This could involve the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court seeking an explanation from the Justice, followed by a possible deeper probe through a committee of senior judges from other high courts.
If the inquiry finds the remarks to be serious enough, the committee may recommend Justice Srishananda's removal. However, removal is a political and parliamentary process, requiring a motion in Parliament, signed by a requisite number of MPs under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The Supreme Court may also request the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court not to assign certain types of cases, especially those involving gender sensitivity or communal issues, to the Justice, as a precautionary administrative step.

The Supreme Court expressed their concern about the judge's remarks, however, the court decided not to take any further action, because the judge apologized for his words.

The incident highlighted that even though judges have a lot of freedom, there are limits to what is acceptable. It also serves as a reminder that everyone, even those in powerful positions, should be careful with their words and actions.

In India, judges hold an important position as guardians of justice, but even they can make mistakes. So, how does the Supreme Court handle judges who misbehave or act irresponsibly, like Karnataka High Court’s Justice, who made inappropriate comments in court? The answer lies in a mix of constitutional rules and informal practices that the judiciary follows.

Judges Are Protected But With Limits

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have a lot of protection. This protection is meant to help them do their job independently, without being worried about outside interference, especially from politicians. But sometimes, this protection becomes a challenge because it makes it difficult to hold a judge accountable if they act unethically.

According to Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, a judge can only be removed through impeachment, which is a very lengthy process. Impeachment requires both Houses of Parliament to agree by a two-thirds majority, which makes it very difficult. Only in cases of “proven misbehaviour” or “incapacity” can a judge be removed. Because of this, impeachment is rare and difficult to achieve.

Impeachment proceedings against SC or HC judges have been initiated, but no Judge has been Impeached till now.
V. Ramaswami	Justice V. Ramaswami was the first judge in India to face impeachment. In 1993, the members of the Lok Sabha brought up a motion against him. He was accused of spending public money for his personal benefit. However, the motion failed because it did not get the two-thirds majority vote needed in the Lok Sabha.
Soumitra Sen	Justice Soumitra Sen from the Calcutta High Court faced impeachment for misconduct. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion against him. This was the first time a judge had been impeached by the Rajya Sabha. However, before the Lok Sabha could vote on the matter, Justice Sen resigned.
J.B. Pardiwala	Justice J.B. Pardiwala from the Gujarat High Court faced trouble because of remarks he made about the reservation system. In 2015, members of the Rajya Sabha moved an impeachment notice against him. But this case didn't progress further.
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy	In 2017, some Rajya Sabha MPs started impeachment proceedings against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. They accused him of wrongdoing, but this also didn’t lead to his removal.

What Happens When Impeachment Fails?

So, what happens when a judge’s actions aren’t serious enough for impeachment but still raise concerns? To work around this, the Supreme Court has found other ways to deal with such situations.

Judicial Action

One way the Supreme Court handles errant judges is through judicial intervention. In 2017, a Justice of the Calcutta High Court was found guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court, and the Court sentenced him to six months in prison, even though it was a rare case, it showed that the Supreme Court could punish judges through its judgments.

Transfer Policy

High Court judges can be transferred from one state to another. While the Constitution doesn’t allow easy removal of judges, the Supreme Court’s Collegium has the power to transfer judges.

Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010

It was introduced to lay down judicial standards and provide for accountability of Judges, and establish credible and expedient mechanisms for investigating individual complaints for misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court and to regulate the procedure for such investigation.

The Lok Sabha passed the Judicial Standards and Accountability (JSA) Bill in March 2012. However, it could not be debated in the Rajya Sabha as Parliament had been adjourned. It has not been officially revisited since then.

Key Provisions of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010

Judges must declare their own assets, as well as those of their spouse and children to ensure transparency in their financial dealings.
It sets certain standards or rules that judges must follow in their conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom.
Anyone can file a complaint against a judge if they believe the judge has behaved improperly (misbehaviour). The complaint will be reviewed by the National Judicial Oversight Committee. If the complaint is serious, it can lead to the removal of the judge. Parliament can also take up this process if there’s enough evidence of wrongdoing.
Complaints and investigations against judges will be kept confidential, meaning they won’t be made public unless necessary. If someone files a frivolous complaint (one that has no real basis), they can be penalised.

Way Forward

Justice delivered by courts depends heavily on the character and conduct of the judges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that judges must have strong moral character and avoid any behaviour that could harm public trust. In 1995, the Supreme Court stated that judges must have “sterling character” and “impeccable integrity.” In 1991, it was declared that a judge’s conduct must be “above reproach.”

The judiciary faces a tough challenge. On one hand, judges need to be protected so they can make fair and independent decisions. On the other hand, there must be a way to deal with judges who act improperly. The Supreme Court has found ways, like using its power of judicial action or transferring judges, but these methods are not always perfect, and they also don’t provide a lasting solution.

While the Supreme Court has developed ways to handle errant judges, the process remains complicated. As long as impeachment is the only formal way to remove a judge, the Supreme Court will have to continue balancing its informal methods with the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

Must Read Articles:

ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICE

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Source:

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q.Consider the following statements in the context of the Impeachment of a Supreme Court Judge:

1. The process is initiated by presenting a notice of motion, signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha.

2. A judge can be removed only for "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity," as per the Indian Constitution.

3. To remove a judge, a two-thirds majority of members present and voting is required in each house of Parliament.

4. After the motion is passed by both houses of Parliament, the President of India gives the final order for the removal of the judge.

How many of the above statements are correct?

A) Only one

B) Only two

C) Only three

D) All four

Answer: D

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct:

The impeachment process of a Supreme Court judge in India begins when either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha sign a notice of motion. This is a requirement before the actual process can start.

Statement 2 is correct:

According to the Indian Constitution, a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only on the grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. These are the only two reasons mentioned.

Statement 3 is correct:

For the removal of a judge, after the motion is debated, a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each house of Parliament must agree to the motion.

Statement 4 is correct:

Once both houses of Parliament pass the motion, the final step is for the President of India to issue the order to officially remove the judge.