Mon Dec 30 03:00:00 UTC 2024: ## Allahabad High Court Judge’s Remarks Highlight Flaws in India’s Judicial Accountability System

**NEW DELHI, December 30, 2024** – A recent speech by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, delivered at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event and perceived as biased against the Muslim community, has reignited debate over the effectiveness of India’s mechanisms for holding higher judiciary judges accountable.

The current system, outlined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Articles 124 (4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Indian Constitution, requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” for impeachment. This necessitates a successful impeachment motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, followed by a trial-like process before a three-member committee. However, this process has proven exceptionally difficult to navigate.

Only two judges – besides Justice Yadav, against whom an impeachment attempt was made – have been found guilty by the committee since its inception. The cases of retired Supreme Court Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court highlight the challenges. Justice Ramaswami was found guilty of extravagant spending, yet the impeachment motion failed due to abstentions in the Lok Sabha. Justice Sen faced impeachment for misappropriation of funds but resigned before the Lok Sabha vote. The resignation of Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court, before a committee hearing on multiple charges, further exemplifies the loopholes in the system.

Experts like retired Madras High Court Justice K. Chandru and jurist Mohan Gopal have criticized the system, noting that resignations effectively halt the process and that judges often retain benefits and even future appointments despite facing accusations of misconduct. The Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) has also argued that the committee’s investigation should continue even after a judge’s resignation, emphasizing the need for accountability to the public. Past correspondence obtained through RTI requests reveals that members of the three-member committees in these cases believed the investigations should continue, but their requests were ultimately denied.

The incident involving Justice Yadav underscores the urgent need for reforms to strengthen the accountability mechanisms within the Indian judiciary, ensuring greater transparency and effectiveness in addressing allegations of judicial misconduct.

Read More