The Indian Judiciary plays an increasingly important role in the life and the governance of this country..
Recently CJI as the master of the roster with the sole prerogative to determine which Bench of judges gets to hear which cases comes under question.
Four senior judges of supreme court came in public and organized a press conference to tell that everything is not going fine inside the judiciary, they were mainly pointing on the CJI that he is allocating case to benches in arbitrary manner
Why judicial reforms and accountability
For ensuring speedy Justice: Speedy justice is not only our fundamental right but also a most important requirement for maintaining the Rule of Law and delivering Good Governance.
Opaque internal structure founded on a combination of unquestioning trust in the office of CJI along with instinctive distaste for any interference by parliament or executive in judicial functioning
Judiciary as guardian of our constitution: Judicial accountability is more important, as decline of values in judiciary is far more dangerous than in any other organ of the government as judiciary has to act as the guardian of our constitution.
Virtually absolute power with court: the courts in India enjoy virtually absolute power than any Court in the world. So accountability is must.
To clear the backlog cases – more than 3 core cases are pending in judiciary there clearance needs holistic reform in the judiciary.
In its absence, the judicial system ends up serving the interests of the corrupt and the law-breakers.
Judicial Accountability
Accountability is the core principle of any Democracy. In our democracy it is only the executive and the legislature which is held accountable and not the judiciary. Judges are also public officials and hence should be made accountable.
It is essential to ensure accountability of the judges to ensure public confidence in the judicial system. Accountability will help in reducing incidences of Nepotism by the judges. Judges being given political posts like in “Justice Sathasivam” case who became the governor of Kerala post retirement raises questions about political influence affecting the judiciary. Moreover, judgements have huge ramifications in the Society hence to make judgements more prudent; judges need to be made accountable.
Impeachment is a legal procedure for the removal of judges on grounds of ”proven misbehavior or misconduct’ but it is far too lengthy and cumbersome procedure. No judge has ever been impeached till date stands testimony to the fact that judiciary enjoys undisputed power. Even in cases like that of Judge Veeraswami, Judge Ramaswami where this procedure was initiated, were not finally completed.
Independence of the judiciary means independence from the executive and legislative and not lack of accountability. The yardstick or parameters to judge accountability and proper procedures for their performance assessment needs to evolve (though debated, discussed) so as not to denigrate judges or do character assassination but to ensure objective, fair and just accountability of judiciary.
Proven methods like a system of evaluation by trained court observers who make unscheduled court visits to evaluate Judges on their knowledge of law, Integrity, Communication skills, and impartiality may be experimented.
Additionally, leading universities should publish journals criticizing any misjudgment. It is important to implement bills like the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill to enforce a reasonable level of restriction. Even countries like Denmark and Sweden have institutions to look into special courts to hear complaints against the judges. However, it is essential that the judicial accountability does not hamper the feature of Independent Judiciary in any way as it would hamper the most essential feature for staying unbiased.
Reforms Needed
Supreme Court act can be passed by parliament after consulting all stakeholders- judiciary, civil society, bar association and political opinion.
Admission-special leave petition under ARTICLE 136 will be heard by this bench comprising of 5 judges
Constitutional- 5 judges bench to deal with constitutional matter.
Appellate-rest 21 judges will be divided into 7 benches of 3 judge each to hear appeal against HC judgment.
Judges will be circulated among 3 division at particular interval.
By this act present crisis can be solved – coherency in SC decision as same 5 judge will listen to constitutional matter. CJI being master of roster issue will also be solved.
Timely appointment of judges –there should not be any vacancy in Courts.
No mechanism to look into the corruption charges on the judges.
Interference of CBI in the working of judiciary amounts to executive control over the judiciary, which goes against the basic principles of the constitution that is judicial independence
The chief justice constituting a 5 judge bench including himself when he is facing allegations ignores the primary principle that justice not only be done, but be seen to be done.
The use of Article 142 has also become a sign of immense judicial indiscipline Article 142 gives judges the power to do whatever it takes to secure justice.
Delay in disposal of cases is to a great extent responsible for the increase in crimes like rape, murder, looting, cheating and so on.
There are almost 30 million cases pending and it takes between 12 to 15 years for a judgment. In the meantime, Witnesses could die, turn hostile, go missing, or get killed.
In many cases, what is being dispensed as justice after so many years of litigation is flawed.
High no. of vacancy in judiciary impacts justice system
,
Judicial accountability is the principle that judges are subject to scrutiny and oversight to ensure that they are acting in accordance with the law and the public interest. There are a number of mechanisms in place to achieve this, including judicial independence, Judicial Review, judicial misconduct, judicial ethics, judicial discipline, judicial impeachment, judicial recall, judicial Elections, judicial performance evaluations, judicial compensation, judicial retirement, and judicial disability.
Judicial independence is the principle that judges are free to decide cases without fear or favor, and without being influenced by political or other pressures. This is essential to ensuring that the judiciary is able to act as a check on the other branches of government and to protect the rights of individuals.
Judicial review is the power of the courts to strike down laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. This power is essential to ensuring that the government does not overstep its bounds and to protecting the rights of individuals.
Judicial misconduct is any behavior by a judge that falls below the standards of the judicial profession. This can include things like making biased decisions, engaging in unethical conduct, or abusing their power. Judicial misconduct can be grounds for discipline or removal from office.
Judicial ethics are the rules that govern the conduct of judges. These rules are designed to ensure that judges act in a fair and impartial manner, and that they avoid conflicts of interest.
Judicial discipline is the process of holding judges accountable for misconduct. This can involve a range of sanctions, from a public reprimand to removal from office.
Judicial impeachment is the process of removing a judge from office. This is a very serious matter, and it can only be initiated by the House of Representatives and then tried by the Senate.
Judicial recall is a process by which voters can remove a judge from office before their term has expired. This is a relatively rare occurrence, but it has happened in a number of states.
Judicial elections are the process by which judges are selected. In some states, judges are appointed by the governor or another elected official. In other states, judges are elected by the voters.
Judicial performance evaluations are the process of assessing the performance of judges. These evaluations can be conducted by the judiciary itself, by the legislature, or by an independent commission.
Judicial compensation is the amount of Money that judges are paid. This is set by the legislature, and it varies from state to state.
Judicial retirement is the process by which judges leave the bench. Judges can retire at any age, but they must typically reach a certain age or number of years of service before they can receive full retirement benefits.
Judicial disability is a condition that prevents a judge from performing their duties. This can be due to illness, injury, or mental impairment. If a judge is found to be disabled, they may be removed from office or placed on inactive status.
Judicial accountability is essential to ensuring that the judiciary is fair and impartial. The mechanisms in place to achieve this are designed to protect the rights of individuals and to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds.
What is the judicial branch?
The judicial branch is one of the three branches of government in the United States. It is responsible for interpreting the laws that are passed by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch.
What are the powers of the judicial branch?
The judicial branch has the power to interpret the Constitution and other laws. It also has the power to decide cases that involve disputes between individuals or between the government and individuals.
How is the judicial branch organized?
The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. It has nine justices who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Lower federal courts are located throughout the country. They have jurisdiction over cases that involve federal law.
What are the qualifications for serving on the Supreme Court?
There are no specific qualifications for serving on the Supreme Court. However, justices are typically appointed from among experienced lawyers and judges.
How long do justices serve on the Supreme Court?
Justices serve for life or until they resign or retire.
What is the process for appointing Supreme Court justices?
The president nominates a justice to the Supreme Court. The nomination is then sent to the Senate, which must confirm the nomination by a majority vote.
What is the process for removing a Supreme Court justice?
A Supreme Court justice can be removed from office only through impeachment. Impeachment is a process by which the House of Representatives brings charges against a federal official, and the Senate then holds a trial to determine whether the official is guilty. If the Senate finds the official guilty, the official is removed from office.
What are some of the most famous Supreme Court cases?
Some of the most famous Supreme Court cases include Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional; Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion; and Bush v. Gore, which decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.
What are some of the criticisms of the judicial branch?
Some critics argue that the judicial branch is too powerful and that it has too much influence over the other branches of government. Others argue that the judicial branch is too slow and that it is not responsive to the needs of the people.
What are some of the reforms that have been proposed for the judicial branch?
Some reforms that have been proposed for the judicial branch include term limits for justices, a national popular vote for president, and a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Sure, here are some multiple choice questions about the topics of judicial independence, judicial review, and Judicial Activism:
Judicial independence is the principle that judges should be free from political interference in their decisions. Which of the following is NOT a way to ensure judicial independence? (A) Appointing judges for life terms (B) Giving judges the power to strike down laws that they believe are unconstitutional (C) Requiring judges to be elected by the people (D) Providing judges with adequate financial Resources
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional. Which of the following is NOT an example of judicial review? (A) The Supreme Court striking down a law that it believes violates the First Amendment (B) A state court striking down a law that it believes violates the state constitution (C) A federal court striking down a law that it believes violates the U.S. Constitution (D) A court of appeals striking down a law that it believes was wrongly decided by a lower court
Judicial activism is the practice of judges using their power to make policy decisions that they believe are in the best interests of the people. Which of the following is NOT an example of judicial activism? (A) The Supreme Court striking down a law that it believes violates the First Amendment (B) A state court striking down a law that it believes violates the state constitution (C) A federal court striking down a law that it believes violates the U.S. Constitution (D) A court of appeals striking down a law that it believes was wrongly decided by a lower court
Which of the following is NOT a criticism of judicial activism? (A) Judicial activism can lead to the courts making policy decisions that are better left to the elected branches of government. (B) Judicial activism can undermine the Separation of Powers. (C) Judicial activism can lead to inconsistent and unpredictable rulings. (D) Judicial activism can be used to advance the personal or political agenda of the judges.
Which of the following is NOT a defense of judicial activism? (A) Judicial activism can be used to protect the rights of minorities and other vulnerable groups. (B) Judicial activism can be used to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. (C) Judicial activism can be used to advance the cause of social justice. (D) Judicial activism can be used to make the law more responsive to the needs of the people.