Judges’ dilemma: On the judiciary, its accountability Politics & News

The Lokpal’s ruling that High Court judges are amenable to its jurisdiction and the Supreme Court order staying it on its own motion raise more than a mere question of law. The issue concerns both the independence of the judiciary and its accountability. That the Court, government law officers and senior advocates found the Lokpal’s decision disturbing is understandable, as many believe that judicial independence will be undermined if judges of constitutional courts are made answerable to the Lokpal, even though they fall under the definition of ‘public servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Lokpal view appears to be prima facie incorrect. There is nothing to suggest that superior court judges were ever considered to be under its remit. Last month, the Lokpal, headed by former Supreme Court judge, A.M. Khanwilkar, rejected a corruption complaint against a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) on the ground that the Lokpal Act, 2013, did not concern apex court judges and that its reference to “persons” who are members of any body or authority created by an Act of Parliament cannot be applied to the Supreme Court, an institution established by the Constitution. However, in respect of High Court judges, it said High Courts established by statutes creating the respective States were statutory bodies, and their judges were “persons” within the meaning of Section 14 of the Lokpal Act.

The independence of the judiciary was the foremost consideration when the Court held in K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) that no case can be registered against them without consulting the CJI, even though it also said judges were public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on this principle, the Lokpal has referred the complaint to the CJI. While the Lokpal ruling is set to be reviewed, the time may have come to address the issue of accountability in the rare event of a credible corruption charge arising against a judge. The matter is now dealt with by the Court through an in-house procedure, initiated only if the Chief Justice of a High Court, or the CJI or the President receives a complaint. If the charges appear true, asking the judges concerned to resign, denying them judicial work or recommending their removal through Parliament are the options available. Some judges are transferred from one High Court to another, but whether a corruption charge is the reason is never disclosed. The Court should see if the present mechanism is enough or it needs to be expanded to include credible follow-up action such as an independent prosecution under its supervision. Both accountability and independence ought to be equally important for the judiciary.