Balancing scales: Judicial independence and accountability in India

Dr Ansari Zartab Jabeen

The Supreme Court (SC) recently published the assets of 21 of a total of its 33 serving judges. The judiciary stands as the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. Its independence is fundamental in upholding democratic values and maintaining a system of checks and balances, especially when legislative or executive actions deviate from constitutional mandates. However, judicial independence must coexist with judicial accountability to retain public trust and legitimacy.

Recent initiatives by the SC, such as publishing judges' assets and the collegiums’ recommendations on its official website, are commendable steps toward increasing transparency. These efforts reflect a commitment to restoring declining public faith in the judiciary. However, to truly strengthen accountability, these practices should be adopted uniformly across all High Courts (HCs) and lower courts in the country.

There is a gap in judicial inclusivity due to underrepresentation of women in the legal profession and on the bench. Unfortunately, the collegiums system remains male-dominated. As of now, the SC Collegium comprises all male judges lacking any female representation.

The legal profession continues to be marred by gender discrimination and incidents of sexual harassment, affecting not just women lawyers but also women judges. Increasing female participation and ensuring safe working environments must be prioritized.

According to a report, out of 687 permanent judges in the HCs, at least 102 are directly related to serving or retired judges, and another 117 belong to influential legal families.

As per the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rule 6, an advocate should not appear before a bench where a relative is presiding. This undermines the principle of natural justice—nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). To counteract these perceptions, the judiciary should consider publishing a list of such overlapping relationships between judges and practicing advocates.

Another issue is the appointment of retired judges to lucrative positions, especially when such appointments follow favourable rulings during their tenure. Transparency in post-retirement appointments and publishing a registry of such positions can enhance institutional credibility.

Judicial independence and judicial accountability are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are complementary. Steps like disclosure of assets, diversity in appointments, regulation of post-retirement positions, and quality assurance in judgments can rebuild public trust and reinforce the sanctity of India's judiciary.

(The writer is Associate Professor and HOD, School of Legal Studies and Research, MGM University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar).