"This case of sexual harassment against the Chief Justice of India will be a haunting memory for SC in the future," declares AP Shah.
The current judicial accountability mechanism in India is primarily governed by an opaque, largely in-house system centred around the Supreme Court Collegium. This system, while handling judicial appointments, transfers, and internal discipline, is often criticised for its lack of transparency, formal procedures, and consequences for non-compliance [1].
Comparison with global best practices shows that India lags behind in institutional judicial oversight. Countries like the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada have established independent oversight bodies to investigate complaints and ensure transparency and accountability [1].
In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) handles complaints, with sanctions including reprimand and suspension [2]. Similarly, the United States employs judicial conduct review commissions at federal and state levels, providing a range of disciplinary actions short of removal [2]. Canada operates a Canadian Judicial Council that investigates misconduct and can recommend sanctions [2].
These models demonstrate that institutional oversight can coexist with judicial independence, reinforcing public trust while preserving autonomy—contrasting with India’s reliance on a non-transparent collegium and political impeachment process [1].
To address these issues, potential reforms are being proposed in India. One such reform includes the establishment of a Statutory Judicial Accountability Commission, a permanent, independent oversight body with statutory backing to receive complaints, investigate misconduct, and recommend appropriate sanctions or removal [3].
Other proposed reforms include enhancing transparency, revising the collegium processes, introducing enforceable ethical standards, streamlining and depoliticising removal procedures, and strengthening in-house complaint mechanisms [3].
The proposed reforms aim to strike a better balance between preserving judicial independence and ensuring judicial accountability, thereby fortifying democracy and public trust in India's justice system [3].
The need for these reforms was highlighted in 2019 when a Supreme Court employee made allegations against then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, underscoring the inadequacies in India's in-house judicial accountability system [4].
In addition, educational measures are proposed, including making judicial orientation a part of law school curricula and expanding National Mission for Justice Delivery to include ethics and accountability training for judges [5].
The proposed reforms align with the international experience where accountability mechanisms support, rather than threaten, judicial autonomy in healthy constitutional democracies. Lessons can also be drawn from countries like Australia (NSW), where the Judicial Commission handles complaints, education, and reports to Parliament, with key features including structured external institutions, transparent procedures, statutory basis, graded sanctions, education/training modules, and data-driven oversight [6].
In conclusion, by adopting these reforms, India can move towards a more transparent, accountable, and effective judicial system, thereby strengthening its democracy and public trust in its justice system.
- The proposed reforms in India, such as establishing a Statutory Judicial Accountability Commission, aim to strike a balance between preserving judicial independence and ensuring accountability, drawing from the examples of countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.
- In contrast to the current opaque collegium system in India, models from these countries demonstrate that institutional oversight mechanisms, equipped with structural external institutions, transparent procedures, statutory basis, and data-driven oversight, can coexist with judicial independence, thereby reinforcing public trust and ensuring accountability.
