&<–2/”>a >nbsp;
Introduction
- 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.
- This act will restructure The Supreme Court into 3 division
- 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.
challenges in judiciary
- Allegation of Corruption in the court.
- 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 independence is the principle that the judiciary should be free from political interference in its decisions. This means that judges should be able to make decisions without fear of reprisal from the government or other powerful interests. Judicial independence is essential to a fair and just legal system.
Judicial accountability is the principle that judges should be held accountable for their decisions. This means that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure that judges are not corrupt or biased. Judicial accountability can be achieved through a variety of means, such as Judicial Review, impeachment, and disciplinary proceedings.
Judicial transparency is the principle that the judiciary should be open and transparent in its operations. This means that the public should have access to information about the judiciary, such as the decisions of judges and the procedures used by the courts. Judicial transparency is essential to public confidence in the judiciary.
Judicial efficiency is the principle that the judiciary should be able to dispose of cases in a timely manner. This means that the courts should be able to handle cases without undue delay. Judicial efficiency is important to ensure that justice is served promptly.
Judicial quality is the principle that judges should be qualified and competent to perform their duties. This means that judges should have the necessary Education, experience, and skills to be effective in their roles. Judicial quality is essential to a fair and just legal system.
Judicial access is the principle that the public should have equal access to the courts. This means that the courts should be available to all people, regardless of their income, race, or social status. Judicial access is important to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to seek justice.
Judicial diversity is the principle that the judiciary should reflect the diversity of the society it serves. This means that the courts should have judges from a variety of backgrounds, including different races, ethnicities, genders, and religions. Judicial diversity is important to ensure that the courts are representative of the people they serve.
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. Judicial ethics are important to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Judicial discipline is the process of holding judges accountable for violating judicial ethics. This process can result in a variety of sanctions, including removal from office. Judicial discipline is important to ensure that judges who violate the public trust are held accountable.
Judicial reform is the process of improving the judiciary. This can involve changes to the structure of the courts, the procedures used by the courts, or the Qualifications of Judges. Judicial reform is important to ensure that the judiciary is fair, efficient, and effective.
Judicial corruption is the abuse of power by judges for personal gain. This can include bribery, extortion, and nepotism. Judicial corruption is a serious problem that undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
Judicial reform is essential to address the problem of judicial corruption. Reforms can include measures to increase judicial transparency, improve judicial accountability, and strengthen judicial ethics. Judicial reform is a complex and challenging task, but it is essential to ensure that the judiciary is fair, efficient, and effective.
Here are some frequently asked questions about public accountability in the judicial system:
What is public accountability in the judicial system?
Public accountability in the judicial system is the principle that judges and other court officials are responsible to the public for their actions. This means that they must be transparent in their decision-making and be open to scrutiny from the public.Why is public accountability important in the judicial system?
Public accountability is important in the judicial system because it helps to ensure that judges and other court officials are fair and impartial. It also helps to prevent corruption and abuse of power.How can public accountability be achieved in the judicial system?
There are a number of ways to achieve public accountability in the judicial system. One way is to make court proceedings open to the public. This allows the public to see how the courts operate and to hold judges and other court officials accountable for their actions. Another way to achieve public accountability is to have independent bodies that monitor the judicial system and investigate complaints against judges and other court officials.What are some of the challenges to achieving public accountability in the judicial system?
One of the challenges to achieving public accountability in the judicial system is that judges are often seen as being above the law. This can make it difficult for the public to hold them accountable for their actions. Another challenge is that the judicial system is often complex and difficult to understand. This can make it difficult for the public to know how to hold judges and other court officials accountable.What are some of the benefits of achieving public accountability in the judicial system?
One of the benefits of achieving public accountability in the judicial system is that it can help to improve the quality of justice. When judges and other court officials are held accountable for their actions, they are more likely to be fair and impartial. This can lead to better outcomes for all parties involved in legal proceedings. Another benefit of public accountability is that it can help to prevent corruption and abuse of power. When judges and other court officials know that they are being watched, they are less likely to engage in corrupt or unethical behavior.What are some of the risks of achieving public accountability in the judicial system?
One of the risks of achieving public accountability in the judicial system is that it can lead to a loss of judicial independence. When judges are too concerned with public opinion, they may be less likely to make unpopular decisions. This can undermine the integrity of the judicial system. Another risk of public accountability is that it can lead to a decrease in judicial efficiency. When judges are constantly having to justify their decisions, they may spend less time on actual cases. This can delay justice for those who need it most.What are some of the best practices for achieving public accountability in the judicial system?
Some of the best practices for achieving public accountability in the judicial system include:Making court proceedings open to the public.
- Having independent bodies that monitor the judicial system and investigate complaints against judges and other court officials.
- Providing training for judges and other court officials on public accountability.
- Developing a Code Of Conduct for judges and other court officials.
- Creating a public website that provides information about the judicial system and how to file complaints.
Question 1
Which of the following is not a function of the judiciary?
(A) To interpret the law
(B) To enforce the law
(C) To make the law
(D) To review the actions of the executive branch
Answer
(C) The judiciary does not make the law. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting laws and reviewing the actions of the other branches of government.
Question 2
Which of the following is not a principle of judicial independence?
(A) Judges should be free from political interference
(B) Judges should be appointed for life
(C) Judges should be paid a high salary
(D) Judges should be subject to impeachment
Answer
(D) Judges should not be subject to impeachment. Impeachment is a political process that can be used to remove judges from office. This would undermine the principle of judicial independence.
Question 3
Which of the following is not a right of the accused in a criminal trial?
(A) The right to a fair trial
(B) The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
(C) The right to an attorney
(D) The right to a speedy trial
Answer
(D) The right to a speedy trial is not a right of the accused in a criminal trial. This right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it is not a right that is universally recognized.
Question 4
Which of the following is not a remedy that can be ordered by a court?
(A) Damages
(B) Injunction
(C) Specific performance
(D) Restitution
Answer
(C) Specific performance is not a remedy that can be ordered by a court. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that can be used to force a party to perform a contract. However, it is not a remedy that is available in all cases.
Question 5
Which of the following is not a type of court?
(A) Trial court
(B) Appellate court
(C) Supreme court
(D) Administrative court
Answer
(D) Administrative courts are not a type of court. Administrative courts are specialized courts that deal with disputes between individuals and government agencies.