Judicial accountability in the context of the Indian Constitution refers to the mechanisms and principles that ensure that the judiciary, which is an essential branch of government, remains transparent, impartial, and accountable to the people and the law. It is vital for maintaining the rule of law, upholding fundamental rights, and preventing any abuse of power within the judicial system.

Key aspects of judicial accountability in India:

1. Independence of the Judiciary: The Indian Constitution guarantees the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental feature of the Constitution. Judges are expected to make decisions without fear or favor, and they should not be subject to external influences, be it from the government or any other entity.



2. Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws and actions of the government. This is a crucial tool for holding the legislative and executive branches accountable by ensuring that they do not exceed their constitutional authority.
3. Transparency and Openness: Judicial proceedings in India are generally open to the public, ensuring transparency. This openness allows the public to scrutinize the functioning of the judiciary and hold it accountable.
4. Judicial Standards and Accountability: To maintain the integrity of the judiciary, the Constitution provides for the removal of judges through a well-defined process. Judges can be impeached by Parliament or removed through other mechanisms if they are found to have engaged in misconduct or have failed to uphold the high standards expected of them.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Indian courts have recognized the concept of Public Interest Litigation, which allows citizens to bring cases before the court for issues of public concern. This mechanism empowers the public to hold the government accountable through the judiciary.
6. Judicial Ethics and Codes of Conduct: Judges in India are expected to adhere to a code of conduct that outlines the ethical standards they must uphold. This includes principles such as impartiality, integrity, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.
7. Oversight Bodies: Various bodies and commissions, like the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) or the Bar Council of India, play roles in overseeing judicial appointments, ethical conduct, and accountability.
8. Media and Civil Society: An active media and civil society play a significant role in holding the judiciary accountable by reporting on its actions, decisions, and any potential issues of misconduct.
9. Continuing Legal Education: Judges are expected to engage in continuing legal education to stay updated on legal developments and maintain their competence and accountability.

These mechanisms collectively aim to ensure that the judiciary in India remains independent, impartial, and accountable, which is crucial for upholding the principles of justice, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Articles and provisions related to accountability of the judiciary
A. Article 124:
This article deals with the appointment and removal of judges of the Supreme Court. It outlines the procedure for their appointment, which involves the President of India, the Chief Justice of India, and a collegium of judges. It also provides for the removal of a judge through the process of impeachment.

Article 124 of the Indian Constitution is all about how judges for the Supreme Court are chosen and how they can be removed if they do something really wrong. In simple terms, it says that:

1. Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India, but they are usually chosen based on the advice of the Chief Justice of India and a group of senior judges.
2. Once they become judges, they can stay in that position until they turn 65 years old. After that, they have to retire.
3. If a Supreme Court judge does something really bad or is not doing their job properly, they can be removed, but this can only happen through a very special and strict process called "impeachment." Impeachment means that both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) must agree to remove the judge.

So, Article 124 deals with how judges of the Supreme Court get their jobs and the rules for taking those jobs away if they do something seriously wrong.

B. Article 217:
This article deals with the appointment and removal of judges of High Courts. It follows a similar process as outlined in Article 124 for the Supreme Court. Article 217 of the Indian Constitution is about the appointment and removal of judges in High Courts. In simple terms, it means:

• Judges in High Courts are usually appointed by the President of India, but they are chosen based on the advice of the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and sometimes other judges.
• High Court judges can serve until they turn 62 years old. After that, they have to retire.
• If a High Court judge does something really wrong or isn't doing their job properly, they can be removed, but this can only happen through a very special and strict process called "impeachment." Impeachment means that both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) must agree to remove the judge.

So, Article 217 outlines the rules for appointing and, if necessary, removing judges in High Courts in India.

C. Article 124A:
This article was inserted by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The NJAC was intended to play a role in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, and the collegium system was reinstated.

D. Article 126:
This article pertains to the appointment of an acting Chief Justice of India when the Chief Justice is unable to perform his or her duties. Article 126 of the Indian Constitution deals with the appointment of an acting Chief Justice of India. In simple terms, it says:

• When the Chief Justice of India is not able to perform their duties temporarily due to illness, absence, or any other reason, the President of India can appoint another senior judge of the Supreme Court to act as the Chief Justice.
• This acting Chief Justice has all the powers and responsibilities of the Chief Justice until the actual Chief Justice is able to resume their duties.

So, Article 126 is a provision that allows for a temporary replacement of the Chief Justice of India when the need arises.

E. Article 217(1):
This article provides for the appointment of an acting Chief Justice of a High Court when the Chief Justice is unable to perform his or her duties.
Article 217(1) of the Indian Constitution is about the appointment of acting Chief Justices of High Courts. In simple language, it means:

• When the Chief Justice of a High Court is unable to perform their duties temporarily due to illness, absence, or any other reason, the President of India can appoint one of the other judges of that High Court to act as the Chief Justice in their place.
• The judge appointed as the acting Chief Justice will have the same powers and responsibilities as the actual Chief Justice until the Chief Justice can return to their duties.

In essence, this article allows for a temporary replacement of the Chief Justice of a High Court when needed.
F. Article 218:
This article outlines the procedure for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
Article 218 of the Indian Constitution deals with the transfer of judges from one High Court to another. In simple terms, it means:

• If a judge from one High Court is needed to temporarily work in another High Court, the President of India can make this transfer. This might happen due to a shortage of judges or the need for a judge with special expertise in a particular case.
• The judge who is transferred will be able to carry out their judicial duties in the High Court to which they are transferred.

So, Article 218 allows for the temporary movement of judges between High Courts when there's a specific need for their services in another region.

G. Article 219:
This article deals with the restrictions on post-retirement employment for judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Article 219 of the Indian Constitution is about the rules for judges of High Courts after they retire. In simple language, it means:

• After a judge of a High Court retires, they cannot take on any other job, except for being a judge or an election commissioner.
• They can't represent anyone in a legal matter, work for the government, or accept any other employment.
• This rule helps maintain the independence and integrity of judges even after they retire.

So, Article 219 ensures that retired High Court judges cannot take up certain jobs or activities that might compromise their impartiality and the integrity of the judicial system.

H. Article 220:
This article pertains to the practice of a retired judge of a High Court to act as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Article 220 of the Indian Constitution deals with the practice of retired judges from High Courts acting as judges in the same High Court or in another High Court. In simple terms, it means: 1. After a judge from a High Court retires, they can be asked to continue working as a judge in the same High Court or in another High Court if they are willing and the President of India approves. 2. They can only do this for a temporary period, and it's usually done when there's a need for extra judges or to help with pending cases.

So, Article 220 allows retired judges to return to the role of a judge for a temporary period if there's a shortage of judges in a High Court, and if they agree to do so.

I. Article 222:
This article deals with the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another with the consent of the President.

Article 222 of the Indian Constitution deals with the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another. In simple terms, it means:

1. The President of India, after consulting with the Chief Justice of India, can transfer a judge from one High Court to another High Court. This can happen if there's a need for judges to be moved between High Courts for reasons such as the better administration of justice.
2. The judge who is transferred will continue to serve as a judge in the High Court to which they are transferred.

So, Article 222 allows for the transfer of judges between High Courts to help ensure a more efficient and effective judicial system.

J. Article 224:
This article provides for the appointment of additional and acting judges in High Courts.

Article 224 of the Indian Constitution is about the appointment of additional and acting judges in High Courts. In simple terms, it means:

1. If a High Court believes that it needs more judges temporarily to handle a backlog of cases or for any other reason, it can appoint additional judges. These judges will work in the High Court until the workload decreases.
2. A High Court can also appoint acting judges when one of its permanent judges is not available for a short period. These acting judges can step in to handle cases during the judge's absence.

So, Article 224 allows High Courts to bring in extra judges when needed, either temporarily or to fill in for absent judges, to ensure the smooth functioning of the court system.

K. Article 225:
This article addresses the powers of the High Courts in making rules and regulations regarding their procedure and the practice of law.

Article 225 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of High Courts to make rules and regulations regarding their procedures and practices.
In simple terms, it means:

• Each High Court in India has the authority to create its own rules and procedures to manage how cases are heard and processed within its jurisdiction. These rules can cover things like how cases are filed, how they are heard, and the general functioning of the court.
• The High Court can also make rules regarding the qualifications and conditions of service of its staff, like clerks, lawyers, and others who work in the court.

So, Article 225 gives High Courts the power to establish and enforce their own rules and regulations for the effective and orderly operation of the court within their area of authority.

While these articles primarily focus on the appointment and removal of judges and the functioning of the judiciary, they are central to ensuring accountability within the judicial system. They establish a balance between the independence of the judiciary and the need for accountability to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens.

Case Laws:
Here are some case laws related to judicial accountability in India:
Special Reference 1 of 1991 (In Re: President's Reference): The Supreme Court held that the

impeachment process under Article 124(4) of the Constitution is the only way to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.

The facts of Special Reference 1 of 1991 (In Re: President's Reference) are as follows:

• On March 19, 1991, the President of India made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article
• 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking its opinion on the following questions:

1. Whether the impeachment process under Article 124(4) of the Constitution is the only way to
2. remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court?
3. Whether the Parliament has the power to enact a law to provide for the removal of judges of the
4. Supreme Court or High Court by means other than impeachment?

The reference was made in the context of a number of allegations of misbehavior against certain judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The Supreme Court heard the reference at great length and delivered its opinion on December 11, 1991.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that:

• The impeachment process under Article 124(4) of the Constitution is the only way to remove a
• judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.
• The Parliament does not have the power to enact a law to provide for the removal of judges of the
• Supreme Court or High Court by means other than impeachment.

The Supreme Court also held that the judiciary is an independent organ of the state and that its independence is essential for the preservation of the rule of law. The court also held that the impeachment process is a safeguard against the arbitrary removal of judges and that it is essential for the protection of judicial independence.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Special Reference 1 of 1991 is a landmark case on the issue of judicial accountability in India. It has been cited in a number of subsequent cases and has established the principle that the impeachment process is the only way to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.

In Re: Judges Inquiry Act (1986): The Supreme Court held that the Judges Inquiry Act, which was enacted to provide for an independent inquiry into allegations of misbehavior against judges, was unconstitutional.

C.P. Sharma vs Union of India (1999): The Supreme Court held that the Parliament can prescribe qualifications for judges and regulate their service conditions, but it cannot interfere with their independence.

The case of C.P. Sharma vs Union of India (1999) was a landmark case on the issue of judicial accountability in India. The case arose from a challenge to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1986, which had been enacted by the Parliament to provide for an independent inquiry into allegations of misbehavior against judges.

The petitioner, C.P. Sharma, argued that the Judges (Inquiry) Act was unconstitutional because it violated the independence of the judiciary. The petitioner argued that the Act created a parallel judicial system, which was not subject to the same checks and balances as the regular judicial system. The petitioner also argued that the Act gave the government too much control over the inquiry process.

The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner and held that the Judges (Inquiry) Act was unconstitutional. The court held that the Act violated the independence of the judiciary because it created a parallel judicial system and gave the government too much control over the inquiry process.

In addition to holding the Judges (Inquiry) Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court also laid down some important principles on the issue of judicial accountability. The court held that the Parliament has the power to prescribe qualifications for judges and regulate their service conditions, but it cannot interfere with their independence. The court also held that the impeachment process under Article 124(4) of the Constitution is the only way to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.

The Supreme Court's judgment in C.P. Sharma vs Union of India (1999) is a significant case on the issue of judicial accountability in India. The case has been cited in a number of subsequent cases and has established the principle that the independence of the judiciary is essential for the preservation of the rule of law.

The judgment also has implications for the way in which allegations of misbehavior against judges are investigated. The court held that the impeachment process is the only way to remove a judge, but it also recognized that there is a need for a mechanism to investigate allegations of misbehavior against judges. The court left it to the Parliament to develop a mechanism for investigating allegations of misbehavior against judges, but it also made it clear that any such mechanism must be consistent with the independence of the judiciary.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer vs S.P. Gupta (2001): The Supreme Court held that the right to information applies to the judiciary, but with some exceptions.

The S.P. Gupta case of 2001 is a landmark case on the issue of judicial accountability in India. The case arose from a challenge to the Supreme Court of India's refusal to disclose information about the assets and liabilities of its judges.

The petitioner, S.P. Gupta, filed a request under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information about the assets and liabilities of the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court refused to disclose the information, arguing that it was exempt from the Right to Information Act.

Gupta appealed the Supreme Court's decision to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC ordered the Supreme Court to disclose the information. The Supreme Court appealed the CIC's order to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the CIC's order. The Supreme Court then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to information applies to the judiciary, but with some exceptions. The court held that the judiciary is not exempt from the Right to Information Act, but it also held that the judiciary has the right to protect its independence and the privacy of its judges.

The Supreme Court also held that the CIC has the power to order the judiciary to disclose information. However, the court held that the CIC must exercise its power in a manner that does not interfere with the independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court's judgment in the S.P. Gupta case is a significant development in the law of judicial accountability in India. The case establishes that the judiciary is not exempt from the Right to Information Act and that the CIC has the power to order the judiciary to disclose information. However, the case also recognizes that the judiciary has the right to protect its independence and the privacy of its judges.

The S.P. Gupta case has been cited in a number of subsequent cases and has had a significant impact on the way in which the judiciary is held accountable to the public.

Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2010): The Supreme Court directed the Parliament to enact a law to establish a National Judicial Accountability Commission to investigate allegations of misbehavior against judges.

In addition to these cases, there have been a number of other cases in which the Supreme Court has dealt with issues related to judicial accountability. For example, in the case of In Re: Ashok Kumar Banerjee (2012), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the conduct of judges, including guidelines on avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining transparency.

It is important to note that the Indian judiciary is fiercely independent, and it has resisted any attempts to encroach on its independence. This is why the impeachment process is the only way to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. This process is also very difficult and cumbersome, which is why no judge has ever been removed from office through impeachment in India.

Despite the challenges, there is a growing consensus in India that the judiciary needs to be more accountable to the public. The Supreme Court has also taken some steps to promote judicial accountability, such as by directing the Parliament to enact a law to establish a National Judicial Accountability Commission. However, much more needs to be done to ensure that the judiciary is accountable to the people it serves.