Now or Never..!!

Debangshu Dinda
BBA. LL. B (Hons.)
KIIT Law School, Bhubaneswar

“The courts hold justly a high, and I think unequalled

pre-eminence in the respect of the world…”
-Winston Churchill

From Golaknath to I.R.Coelho, from Basic Structure Doctrine to Natural Justice Principles the
Supreme Court has walked a long distance acting as the guardian of the Constitution, always
standing up for the rights of the citizens. But does the Supreme Court command the identical
deference it had earlier?
The concept of judicial accountability in India is considered in two ways. Firstly, accountability
of the higher judiciary in India for the judgments passed by them. Have the Judges in India been
responsive to the Constitutional goals and the felt necessities of time in the past and at present?
The existence of this type of accountability is more illusory than real. This is because the
mechanisms to correct an error on the part of the higher judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court
are very few, and even these can be judicially reviewed. Also if a judicial decision is in
contravention to the constitutional provisions, what is the process to correct it?
Secondly, the institutional methods of making Judges accountable in India viz., the method of
their appointment, removal and the inhibitions to criticism of their work by law of contempt. But
these methods, particularly appointments, have become redundant in the light of Supreme Court
decision in Third Judges case. Judicial accountability in the first sense was very much in
question in the first two decades of the Supreme Court. Some of the recent instances where the
question of Judicial Accountability was raised are:
1) The controversy over the proposed elevation of Karnataka Chief Justice P. D. Dinakaran -
against whom there were allegations of land grabbing;
2) A retired Chief Justice of India was accused, possibly for the first time, of favouring relatives
- The Justice Sabharwal saga;
3) The Ghaziabad provident fund (PF) scam - 37 judges, including a sitting Supreme Court
judge, have been accused of siphoning off money from the PF kitty of court employees;
4) The current Chief Justice of India recommended the removal of a Judge of the Calcutta High
Court, Justice Soumitra Sen on charges of corruption.
The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 came into force to curb the disparities but failed to cope with
contemporary activities. Thus the need for a fresh legislation was realized after it became evident
that the earlier piece of legislation has been unable to cure the disease for which it was made.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 has been introduced in the Parliament
addressing the strengthening of the judiciary by making it more accountable. The statute contains
the basic features of the previous Act as well as many reforms which have been incorporated in it
to cope with modern-day issues because justice is a consumer product and must therefore meet
the test of confidence, reliability and dependability like any other product if it is to survive
market scrutiny. It exists for citizenry at whose service only the system of justice must work.
Judicial responsibility, accountability and independence are in every sense inseparable. They are,
and must be, embodied in the institution of the judiciary.
It was the Emergency of 1975 that saw perhaps the worst political misuse of the judicial system.
Four of the judges of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed with a lower court
judgment that people had no Right to Life because Article 21 had been suspended by the
proclamation of Emergency. The author as a student of law seriously feels that the time has come
when we should start an evaluation of the performance of the High Court judges at least at the
time of their elevation as Chief Justices to the High Courts and the Apex court.
It is rightly observed by Justice Sahai, “Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers…” but
the question that crops up is whether judiciary is really providing the resolutionary part to the
people when they are delivering a judgment or passing an order? We must hold judges
accountable not only for their activism but also for their failure to do what they ought to do. We
must demand that their judgments be based on sound reasons and are unaffected by fear, favour
or public opinion. However, the sheer volume of cases makes it difficult for judges to write
sound judgments and academics to criticize them. It would be better if our judiciary examined
fewer cases, but took time to decide them well, and was subject to academic scrutiny as a matter
of course. An undecided case is usually better than a badly decided one, especially when one is
staring at a court of last resort.
As a citizen of India I strongly believe that it’s time to put some institutional reforms in place
because as they say - Better late than never!

References:

 Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1943

 I.R.Coelho v. State of tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1
 Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
 Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
 In re: Presidential Reference (AIR 1999 SC 1)
 Atin Kumar Das, Independence of Judiciary in India : A Critical Analysis , (Feb 7,2011)
http://www.articlesbase.com/national-state-local-articles/independence-of-judiciary-in-
india-a-critical-analysis-1956209.html#ixzz1DX4GKYlZ
 Judicial accountability- the Justice Sabharwal saga,
http://www.suchetadalal.com/?id=f4a703f0-fb65-4b67-
92e8bfe450d&base=sections&f&t=Judicial+accountability-
+the+Justice+Sabharwal+saga (Feb 02,2011)
 Judges and Judicial Accountability, Cyrus Das ,Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi,2005
 The Times of India,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/The-khadi-clad-neta-
fears-the-men-in-black/articleshow/7638025.cms?intenttarget=no