Justification for Judicial Accountability : 

Example : When a Public Interest Litigation was filed by an Advocate Indira Jain Singh (2004 – 2005) was filed before the Supreme Court seeking information about the outcome of enquiries against the Grant Judges of Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts.

 Supreme Court dismissed this PIL by holding that Supreme Court has no control on High Court’s. although declare for law of Supreme Court is binding High Courts. And also depending under the cover of Judicial Independence. This means whatever that is happening within the judiciary regarding Judges role and their conduct or the stage of action initiated or nature of action taken, is not to be disclosed in the Public.

 Thus, the information of the Supreme Court and other courts in India by protecting the term Judiciary Independence always as a tool or device to cover-up their interment failures and weaknesses. But the concept of Judicial Independence as visualized / contemplated by the Founding fathers of the Constitution.

The Judicial Functioning is invariably claimed independent in Justice Delivery process, but there is none who can vouch for it.  In fact Independence or no Independence regardless of this, society wants pure and pious Justice and nobody can stop it. If the Judge so decides, even if he is controlled by the executive. Interferences of society and of polity have always been there and will remain so. The needs are of personal honesties and of strong and stem administrative controls. Judicial Independence is even not needed.

 However, today, there is hardly any result from in-house self-regulations which is put-fourth to the Public to know about it. It is a total lack of transparency and also necessary corollary of Judicial Independence.

 Definitely in such a case, this Judicial Independence is unconstitutional as also injurious. It is against all those ceremonies, which courts keep on giving to the Public. The Judges are part and parcel of the same society, which is consistently labelled as corrupt or even criminal.

 One can’t easily imagine that a Judge is totally un-influenced, even if he wants to be so, because of his social and environmental association in the society, in which he is brought up through his family relations, friends, colleagues etc..  If he raises truly above are such natural influences around him, the Judge may be treated as Demi-god, deserving applause and adornment.

 It has always been the personal cause of Judges so there has been a repeated voice in favour of Judicial Autonomy, which is transformed into clam and assertion of being “Immune” and “Independent”. Judicial verdicts are liberally listed in Justice “Sheth Case” . Justice bases has rendered a yeomen service for his brother-judges in his campaign for Immunity of the Judges.
If the Judges truly carryout their Independence and reflecting it in the process of delivery of Justice, there is no need to all to have a Judicial vigilance department, which is rapidly on the increase.

 All the Chief Justices of the Indian High Courts should have not felt the need to resolve as under which reveals that there has been as overall violation of Civil Procedure Code around the country. If Judicial Independence should have been so essential and operative, then cases relating to valuable properties should not been allowed to be adjudicated by Revenue Authorities, Registrars of Co-Operative Societies etc. In 10 Judgments  (last Justice) addressed to the attention of the Chief Justice of India, it cleanly revealed that at least 4 Judicial Offices / Magistrates suppresses the some document and all make the some concoctions which stood demolished by the very documents, filed by the prosecution.

 This shows a perpetual influence of interested persons over a period of 11 years and right up to the final decision in the matter. Judicial Independence is a self-presumed privilege of the Judiciary, which stands aborted for personal interest, protection from and to preclude accountability and avoid transparency. The only ground on which this privilege stands generated is the Public Interest. But the fact is that the public Justice is the public interest which is nowhere fulfilled.

No provision of the constitution specially provided for the Judicial Independence as immunity. The Supreme Court constantly coated the meaning of Autonomy to Immunity or to such an Independence, which literally isolated Judiciary from the rest of the society which is deserved by the very preamble of the constitution in 51A. A Judiciary can’t be separated from executive as wished through Article 50.

Any attempt to separations lends itself to flouting of the constitution by way of Article 51A. It is only the professional honesty restored through impartial administrative scrutinises and through Judicial Punishments which can help ensure the Public Interest in the form of Public Justice.


Judicial Independence as professional immunity should be formally derecognised by an act of the Parliament and hold it as unconstitutional. So that Accountability and transparency relating to Judicial System can be reached and attained. Only professional autonomy can be allowed to stay.


The Judiciary in India is acting as guardian of the Constitution, its values and protecting it from Illegality, Arbitrariness Mollified and Corruption of other wings of the state. But the problem here is how to deal with the situation of “QUIS - CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES” as what happens when the same is prevalent in Judiciary.

 In 20th century corruption has become a universal phenomenon. There is no system in the world which is not infected by corruption. Even the Judiciary is not exemption and there have been instances of corruption by the Judges. But it was at a low rate previously and now it is at high rate. In India unlike other Democracies Judges are considered as super human, they are given highest amount of respect, so even an iota of corruption in Judiciary may damage the faith of the people in Judiciary.

 Historically, Indian Judiciary has enjoyed highest amount of Independence and has been held least accountable. But this never means that Judiciary can be allowed to be an imperium in imperio (Be you even so high but law is above you). If there is chosen of values in Judiciary law must come down heavily.

 Judges should be held accountable since depletion of values in Judiciary is far more deplorable. But what mechanism should adopted for Judicial Accountability? What actions will attract accountability? In Indian Scenario what is the status of Judicial Accountability, what should be done to improve the situation? Are answered in 2006 bill of the Central Government.

  Justification For Judicial Accountability :

 One of the distinctive features of our constitution is that while the legislative and the executive control suspense or review the decisions of the court. But, the higher courts / Constitutional Courts can review the decision of the executive and test the legality or constitutional validity of the laws passed by the legislature.

 The higher courts while exercising the powers of judicial review have been conferred with powers to uphold constitution and to ensure the other organs of the states function within the limits, prescribed for them under the constitution.

  The Supreme Court held in the Minerva Mills Case , that our constitution is founded on a nice balance of power amongest the three organs of the state that is, The Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. It is the function of the court to pronounce upon the validity of laws. A controlled constitution will become uncontrolled.

Despite a big question as to whether Judicial Independence exists or not, the much adopted Independence is being used for all types of personal protection of the Judges. Overall Judiciary is sensitive to interference of the government even in the appointment and disciplinary matters of Judges and not when it comes down to Independence in the justice delivery process. In matters of discipline no sections of society including the Judges, can be immune to law.

  The Judiciary presumes that it is in such a way independence that is not accountable to society; it raised it and also maintaining it. Autonomous working of the Right and privilege of every Public Department and it is a basic procedural property against external interferences. But this property can’t be stretched to a point of being out law.

  The Judicial Independence (of Judges) it constitutes a self respecting class of the society who will never disclose the assets nor will tolerate any non-judicial member in the National Judicial Commission.

  Despite the fact that the concept of Independent Commissions is invariably held by the some Judiciary, to be a basic requirement to meet the spirits of enquiry. It only means that the proposed National Judicial Commission will be practically, somebody which is Supreme Collegiums of the day.

  The Supreme Court raises that provision of Sec 25 of Right to Information Act and sought exemption from it. For any information which in the opinion of Chief Justice of India or its nominee may adversely affect or interfere or tends to interfere with the independence of Judiciary or administration of Justice.

  Supreme Court proposed an amendment exempting the Chief Justice of India decisions on Right to Information applications. From being subjected to appeal before the Central Information Commission.

  It has been as regular attempt of the Supreme Court that any information sought by public concerning the Judges or the Judiciary they are protecting that if such information is made known to the public. It will adversely affect the Judicial Independence and the working of the Judiciary as a whole.

   They are using Judicial Independence as a guide to protect themselves and to cover their weakness. The concept of Judicial Independence must be strictly confined to the freedom of Judges to decide.

JUSTIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY:

               Judicial review means the power of courts to review decisions of other organs of the governments.

The very existence of this power brings the question of accountability. It must be checked whether such overriding powers are properly exercised, in good faith and with responsibility and judicial accountability is the best modus operandi to undertake such a task.

The need of accountability becomes far more justified when  the power exercised under judicial review take the shape of activism and interferes more and more on the province of  other organs of state. In fact ,in US, one of the reasons for the development of this doctrine was because of activism of the courts, this is true even  in Indian context,  and in fact, it is one of the dominant reasons for the framing of the 2006 Bill. It is always necessary to check the concentration of powers in hands of one organ of the state, as the principle of constitutionalism directs, and Judicial Accountability can be one of the methods to check the concentration   of power in the hands of judiciary, judiciary must not shy away from this doctrine, and this will-in-turn benefit the judiciary itself.

              A judiciary officer while exercising the authority, he shall be free from apprehension of personal consequence to himself.

Judicial Independence is  regarded even as human right, as provided by Act 10 of UNDHR (United Nations Declaration on Human Rights) which enunciates that everyone is entitled to fill equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, this doctrine also includes economic independence.

   Alexander Hamilton pointed out that limitation on the government can be prescribed in practice in no other way than through the medium of courts of justice. Without this all reservations of particular Rights and Privileges would amount to nothing.

 Judicial Independence ensures that powerful individuals must conform to law. Need of the judicial Independence is not for the Judges are the judiciary Parse.

The judges have important social role in the preservation of liberty; establishment of stable government depends on the strength of Judicial Independence. However, independence of judiciary is not absolute, it should not be construed in a manner to confer immunity from the demands of justice for misdeeds or to protect a judge from investigation & ensure for valid charge, and nevertheless the advocates of Independence observe that the judges should not be held accountable for rule of law.

 This canvasses the picture of conflict between judicial independence and judicial accountability. But they are inseparable and not inconsistent with each other. Judicial accountability is a facet of Judicial Independence., still in certain situations they may conflict.

Judicial Accountability :