The transparency and accountability of judicial function form the cornerstone of a robust and effective legal system, ensuring public trust and upholding the principles of justice. This abstract presents a comprehensive analysis of the state of transparency and accountability within the judicial system of India. [1]Recognizing the pivotal role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of citizens and maintaining the rule of law, this study examines the existing mechanisms, challenges, and potential avenues for improvement.

The research delves into the historical evolution of the Indian judiciary, tracing the development of transparency and accountability norms over time. It critically evaluates the current mechanisms in place, such as the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding transparency laws, the functioning of judicial commissions, and the efficacy of internal accountability mechanisms within the judiciary. Moreover, the study investigates the use of technology in promoting transparency, such as online case management systems and virtual court proceedings, and assesses their impact on accessibility and openness.

Challenges to transparency and accountability within the Indian judiciary are identified, including concerns related to judicial appointments, delays in the dispensation of justice, and the need for clearer guidelines on ethical conduct. [2]Additionally, the research explores comparative perspectives, drawing insights from international best practices to propose potential reforms that could enhance the transparency and accountability of the Indian judicial system.

The findings of this study aim to contribute to ongoing discussions among legal scholars, policymakers, and the general public on the imperative of ensuring a judiciary that is not only independent but also transparent and accountable. By addressing the identified challenges and proposing pragmatic solutions, the research seeks to foster a judicial environment that instills confidence in the populace and upholds the principles of justice in the diverse and dynamic context of India.

Introduction
The judiciary, often referred to as the third pillar of the state, stands as a cornerstone in the framework of a democratic nation, wielding a unique and critical role distinct from the executive and legislative branches. [3]In the context of the Indian Constitution, the judiciary is vested with the monumental responsibility of dispensing justice, a fundamental demand of citizens and a linchpin for upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The essence of the judiciary's role in a democratic system lies in its capacity to act as the custodian of citizens' rights. It serves as the ultimate authority to interpret and enforce the Constitutional ideals that articulate the objectives of social, economic, and political fairness for all residents. The Preamble of the Constitution delineates these noble objectives, emphasizing the judiciary's duty to ensure that justice prevails without discrimination, and that every citizen's rights are protected.

In the pursuit of these lofty goals, the judiciary becomes a bastion of justice, guarding against any encroachment on civil liberties and upholding the rule of law. When justice is not delivered impartially, it poses a severe threat to civil society's interests and undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. Therefore, an independent judiciary is not merely a constitutional provision but is viewed as the bedrock of democracy.[4]

The role played by the Indian judiciary has been pivotal in shaping the trajectory of the Indian Polity. [5]Through landmark judgments and legal interpretations, the judiciary has significantly influenced the course of governance and administration in the country. It has acted as a check and balance mechanism, preventing potential abuses of power by the executive and legislative branches, thereby safeguarding the democratic principles that underpin the nation.

Moreover, the judiciary has been instrumental in addressing social issues and advocating for the rights of marginalized and vulnerable sections of society. Landmark decisions have been rendered to advance gender equality, protect the environment, and promote social justice. [6]These decisions have not only transformed the legal landscape but have also contributed to the broader societal evolution towards a more equitable and just nation.

In the intricate tapestry of democracy, the judiciary's role extends beyond adjudication. It involves interpreting laws, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring that the government functions within the framework of the Constitution. The judiciary's independence is paramount to its effectiveness, as it allows judges to make decisions based on legal principles and constitutional provisions, free from external pressures.

Independence of Judiciary

The judiciary is the defender of the people's fundamental rights and the keeper of the constitution. Judges' judicial independence refers to a situation in which they are free to make decisions or pass judgment without being influenced by the government or other strong entities. The judiciary, as an organ of government, should be free from the influence and control of the other two organs of government, namely the executive and legislative. In a modern state, judicial independence is vital for the following reasons:

• To ensure an impartial trial for the accused and to safeguard the innocent from harm and usurpation.
• To keep government officials within the bounds of their legitimate authority and to check the arbitrary use of their powers; [7]
• To act as a guardian of the constitution, particularly in a federal form of government to keep the government officials within the bounds of their legitimate authority. [8]

Remembering the important role of the judiciary and influence on the public, there arises a necessity to judge the judges to safeguard the judiciary from abusive powers of the judges. Internal conflicts in the judiciary affecting the role of the judiciary are detrimental for the entire nation. An increase in such conflicts calls for the need for stronger judicial accountability so that justice that is to be delivered is not compromised. Judicial accountability is a two-fold mechanism. [9]

1. By the term judicial accountability, it means that the judges are responsible for the decisions they deliver all by themselves. It is the transparency in the decision-making process that helps in bringing the accountability. Every public body is responsible for answering the public for the decision they take and the function they carry out. [10]
    
2. The extent of accountability differs in terms of the work being carried out and the functions that are discharged by the public body or institution. Similarly, the judiciary which is one of the wings of the government is to be held accountable as well. But the judiciary is not subject to the same level of accountability as the executive or the legislative wings of the government. [11]
    
3. Judicial accountability takes place by means of the provisions that have been laid down relating to the review, appeal and revision. The Constitution of India provides for the removal of the judges of the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Courts for misbehaviour and arbitrary regulation of power by means of impeachment. The provisions for the removal of judge's rests on Articles 124 (2) and (4) for the judges of the Supreme Court whereas for the judges of the High Courts the removal provision rests on Article 217.

Judicial Transparency and Accountability in the Indian Perspective: An In-depth Analysis

Judicial transparency and accountability are foundational principles that uphold the integrity and effectiveness of any legal system. In the Indian context, these principles play a crucial role in ensuring that the judiciary remains an unbiased and accountable pillar of democracy. Transparency refers to the openness and accessibility of information, while accountability involves holding individuals or institutions responsible for their actions. In the realm of the judiciary, these concepts are vital for maintaining public trust and confidence. This article delves into the definition, significance, and constitutional framework surrounding judicial transparency and accountability in India. [12]

Definition and Significance
Definition:
Judicial transparency refers to the accessibility of information related to the functioning of the judiciary, including court proceedings, decisions, and administrative processes. It encompasses the idea that citizens have the right to know how the judiciary operates and the reasons behind its decisions. [13]On the other hand, judicial accountability pertains to the responsibility of judges and the judiciary as a whole to justify their actions, decisions, and conduct to the public and other branches of government.[14]

Significance:
The significance of judicial transparency and accountability cannot be overstated in a democratic society. These principles serve as the bedrock of public trust in the judiciary, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. When citizens have access to information about court proceedings and decisions, it promotes understanding and confidence in the legal system. Accountability, on the other hand, acts as a check against abuse of power and helps maintain the judiciary's independence.

Constitutional Framework Regarding Judicial Accountability
India's Constitution provides a robust framework for judicial accountability, balancing the need for an independent judiciary with the imperative of ensuring transparency and accountability.

1. Independence of the Judiciary:
   • Article 50 of the Indian Constitution emphasizes the separation of the judiciary from the executive, a fundamental principle for ensuring judicial independence. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of accountability, as judges must be free from external influence to make impartial decisions.[15]
      
2. Judicial Review:
   • The power of judicial review, inherent in the Constitution, allows the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This power acts as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that they adhere to the constitutional principles and protecting citizens' rights.[16]
      
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
   • The Supreme Court of India, through innovative interpretation, introduced Public Interest Litigation as a tool for enforcing public duties. PIL allows citizens to directly approach the court to seek justice for violations of public rights, promoting transparency and accountability by addressing issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.[17]
      
4. Contempt of Court:
   • While the power of contempt is essential for maintaining the dignity of the judiciary, it must be exercised judiciously. The Constitution, under Article 129 and 215, grants the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to punish for contempt. However, the judiciary is aware that this power should not stifle legitimate criticism but should focus on actions that genuinely undermine the administration of justice.[18]
      
5. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill:
   • The Parliament of India enacted the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill in 2010, which led to the establishment of the National Judicial Oversight Authority (NJAC). The NJAC aimed to inquire into complaints against judges and recommend appropriate action. However, the Supreme Court, in the 2015 case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India,[19] declared the NJAC unconstitutional, emphasizing the need to protect judicial independence.[20]
      
6. Collegium System:
   • The collegium system, though criticized for lack of transparency, plays a pivotal role in judicial appointments. The Supreme Court, through a series of judgments, established the collegium system, giving judges a significant say in the appointment and transfer of judges. Efforts have been made to make the collegium system more transparent, but concerns about its functioning persist.[21][22]

Foundations of Judicial Independence in India: Upholding the Pillar of Democracy
The Importance of an Independent Judiciary:
An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of any democratic society, and in India, this principle holds paramount significance. Judicial independence ensures that the judiciary remains impartial and free from external influences, allowing it to act as a check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches. The importance of an independent judiciary in India is underscored by its role in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and fostering public confidence in the legal system.

1. Upholding the Rule of Law:
   An independent judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law, which is the foundation of a democratic society. Judges must be free to interpret and apply laws without interference, ensuring that legal decisions are based on the merits of the case and the principles of justice. This independence guarantees that all individuals, regardless of their status or affiliations, are subject to the same legal standards[23].
    
2. Protecting Individual Rights:
   A key function of an independent judiciary is to safeguard individual rights and liberties. In India, where diversity is a defining characteristic, an impartial judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of all citizens. It acts as a shield against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that constitutional guarantees are not compromised.[24]
    
3. Fostering Public Confidence:
   Public trust in the legal system is vital for the functioning of a democracy. An independent judiciary enhances this trust by demonstrating that legal decisions are based on principles of justice and fairness rather than political or external pressures. When citizens believe in the fairness of the judicial process, they are more likely to respect and comply with the law.[25]

Separation of Powers and its Role in Ensuring Judicial Autonomy:

Constitutional Framework

1. The Indian Constitution enshrines the principle of separation of powers, delineating distinct functions for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Articles 50, 121, and 122 emphasize the need for maintaining the separation between the judiciary and the executive. This constitutional framework is designed to prevent any one branch from unduly influencing or dominating the others.[26]
    
2. Checks and Balances: The separation of powers serves as a system of checks and balances, with each branch acting as a check on the powers of the others. The judiciary, as an independent entity, acts as a check on both the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they adhere to constitutional principles. This separation is crucial for preventing the abuse of power and protecting the rights of citizens.[27]
    
3. Judicial Review: The power of judicial review further strengthens the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary's authority to review and strike down legislation or executive actions that violate the Constitution ensures that the rule of law prevails. This power acts as a safeguard against any attempts to undermine the autonomy of the judiciary.[28]
    
4. Appointment Process: The separation of powers is evident in the appointment process of judges. The Constitution entrusts the President with appointing judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges. This process ensures that judicial appointments are made independently of political pressures, reinforcing the autonomy of the judiciary.
    
5. Judicial Accountability: While judicial independence is crucial, it is not absolute. The concept of judicial independence in India is complemented by accountability. The judiciary is accountable to the Constitution and the people, and mechanisms such as impeachment and contempt of court exist to address any abuse of power. The foundations of judicial independence in India rest on the twin pillars of upholding the rule of law and ensuring the separation of powers. [29] An independent judiciary is not a luxury but a necessity for a thriving democracy. By acting as a guardian of the Constitution, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in maintaining the delicate balance of power and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the citizens it serves. The ongoing commitment to these principles is essential for preserving the integrity and effectiveness of the Indian judicial system.[30]
    
6. Judicial Accountability Mechanisms: An Examination of Existing Frameworks and the Role of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
   
   Judicial accountability is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, ensuring that judges adhere to ethical standards and remain transparent in their decision-making processes. This paper aims to explore the existing mechanisms for holding judges accountable and to analyze the role of institutions such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in bolstering accountability within the judicial system.

Existing Mechanisms for Holding Judges Accountable:

1. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010:
   The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, introduced in 2010, sought to establish a framework for ensuring accountability among judges. It proposed the creation of a National Judicial Oversight Committee to investigate complaints against judges and recommend appropriate actions. However, the bill faced criticism for its potential impact on judicial independence and was subsequently withdrawn.
    
2. In-House Inquiry Mechanism:
   Many judicial systems incorporate an in-house mechanism, where a panel of senior judges investigates complaints against their peers. While this approach allows for internal scrutiny, concerns have been raised about its effectiveness, as it may lack transparency and independence.
    
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
   PIL provides an avenue for citizens to raise concerns about the conduct of judges before the courts. However, the success of PIL in holding judges accountable depends on the court's willingness to entertain such petitions and the strength of the evidence presented.

The Role of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):

1. Creation and Composition:
   The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed as a constitutional body to replace the Collegium system of judicial appointments. The NJAC aimed to include members from both the judiciary and the executive, fostering a more transparent and diverse process for selecting and appointing judges[31].
    
2. Enhancing Accountability through Transparency:
   Proponents of the NJAC argue that its composition, which includes members from outside the judiciary, could lead to greater transparency in the appointment process. By involving multiple stakeholders, the NJAC sought to minimize the risk of nepotism and promote meritocracy in judicial appointments.[32]
    
3. Controversies and Challenges:
   The NJAC faced considerable opposition, with concerns raised about its potential impact on judicial independence. Critics argued that the inclusion of executive members in the appointment process might compromise the autonomy of the judiciary. In 2015, the Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional, reinstating the Collegium system.

The question of judicial accountability remains a complex and debated issue. While existing mechanisms offer avenues for holding judges accountable, challenges persist in terms of transparency and independence. The role of institutions like the National Judicial Appointments Commission exemplifies the ongoing struggle to strike a balance between accountability and judicial independence. As the discourse on judicial reforms continues, it is imperative to evolve mechanisms that strengthen accountability without compromising the fundamental principles of an independent judiciary.

Landmark Cases and Judicial Transparency
Judicial Transparency
Judicial transparency is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, ensuring accountability and fostering public trust in the legal system. This paper delves into landmark cases that have significantly influenced the discourse on judicial transparency, as well as judicial pronouncements on the right to information in judicial matters.[33]

Analysis of Key Judgments Shaping the Discourse on Judicial Transparency

1. Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (1975):
   This case, arising out of the election dispute between Raj Narain and then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, marked a pivotal moment in Indian judicial history. The judiciary's assertive stance and commitment to transparency were evident in the decision to set aside the election, emphasizing the role of the judiciary as a check on the executive.
    
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975):
   A continuation of the above case, this judgment reinforced the judiciary's commitment to transparency by ordering the disclosure of the Kuldip Nayar report, which investigated the excesses during the Emergency. The case contributed to the establishment of the principle that the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding democratic values.
    
3. Court on its Own Motion v. State (Delhi High Court Blast Case) (2011):
   This case exemplifies the judiciary's proactive role in ensuring transparency and accountability. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of the blast outside its premises and ordered an inquiry into the incident. The judgment emphasized the need for open investigations and timely dissemination of information to the public.

Judicial Pronouncements on the Right to Information in Judicial Matters

1. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019):
   In this case, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to the office of the Chief Justice of India. The judgment clarified that the CJI's office falls within the ambit of the RTI Act, reinforcing the principles of transparency and accountability within the judiciary.
    
2. Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2011):
   The Supreme Court, in this landmark decision, held that judges' assets could not be kept confidential and should be disclosed under the RTI Act. The judgment affirmed the right of citizens to access information related to the financial assets of judges, promoting transparency in the judiciary.

Landmark cases play a crucial role in shaping the discourse on judicial transparency. Through analyses of cases such as Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi and subsequent judgments, the judiciary's commitment to openness and accountability becomes evident. Additionally, judicial pronouncements on the right to information in cases like Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal contribute to establishing a balance between transparency and the need to maintain the dignity of the judiciary. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these cases serve as pillars in the ongoing conversation surrounding judicial transparency and accountability.

Public Education and Awareness Programs: Fostering Understanding of the Judiciary and the Crucial Role of Civil Society in Promoting Transparency and Accountability

Public education and awareness programs play a pivotal role in enhancing citizen understanding of the judiciary's functioning and fostering transparency and accountability. This paper explores initiatives aimed at educating the public on the intricacies of the judiciary and examines the vital role civil society plays in advocating for transparency and accountability.

1. National Judicial Academy's Outreach Programs:
   The National Judicial Academy in many countries conducts outreach programs to bridge the gap between the judiciary and the public. Workshops, seminars, and interactive sessions are organized to explain legal processes, the role of judges, and the significance of court decisions.
    
2. Open Court Sessions and Mock Trials:
   Many judicial systems organize open court sessions and mock trials to provide the public with firsthand experience of courtroom proceedings. These initiatives aim to demystify the legal process, increase public trust, and promote a better understanding of the judiciary's role in dispensing justice.
    
3. Legal Literacy Campaigns:
   Governments and non-governmental organizations often launch legal literacy campaigns to empower citizens with basic legal knowledge. These campaigns include distributing informational pamphlets, conducting awareness drives, and organizing community-level workshops to educate people about their legal rights and the judicial system.

The Role of Civil Society in Promoting Transparency and Accountability:

1. Watchdog Organizations and Judicial Monitoring:
   Civil society organizations often act as watchdogs, monitoring judicial proceedings and decisions. Through independent assessments, these organizations contribute to holding the judiciary accountable, highlighting areas for improvement, and advocating for transparency in the administration of justice.
    
2. Citizen Engagement in Policy Advocacy:
   Civil society groups actively engage in policy advocacy to promote legal reforms that enhance transparency and accountability in the judiciary. By mobilizing public support and collaborating with legal experts, these organizations influence legislative changes that strengthen the judicial system.[42]
    
3. Use of Technology for Information Dissemination:
   Civil society leverages technology to disseminate information about judicial processes, court decisions, and legal rights. Online platforms, social media campaigns, and interactive websites contribute to creating a more informed citizenry and fostering transparency by making judicial information accessible to the public.[43]
    
4. Future Outlook and Emerging Trends in Judicial Transparency in India:
   Anticipated Developments and Global Influences

As India continues to evolve, the landscape of judicial transparency faces dynamic shifts. This paper explores anticipated developments within the Indian judiciary aimed at ensuring greater transparency and accountability. Additionally, it examines global trends influencing the trajectory of judicial transparency in India.[44]

Anticipated Developments in Ensuring Transparency and Accountability:

1. Expansion of E-Court Initiatives:
   • Ø Anticipated Development: The judiciary in India is expected to further expand its e-court initiatives, leveraging technology to enhance transparency in court proceedings. E-filing, digital case management, and live streaming of court proceedings may become more commonplace to provide public access to legal processes.
   • The Supreme Court of India's decision in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), which emphasized the importance of live-streaming court proceedings, may serve as a foundation for the anticipated expansion of e-court initiatives.[45]
      
2. Strengthening of Judicial Ethics and Conduct Codes:
   • Ø Anticipated Development: There could be a focus on strengthening judicial ethics and conduct codes to ensure greater accountability. Mechanisms for handling judicial misconduct, with an emphasis on transparency in the disciplinary process, may see further refinement.
   • The case of R. S. Misra v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (2018), where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of maintaining judicial discipline, might influence the anticipated developments in enhancing judicial ethics and conduct codes.[46]

Global Trends Influencing Judicial Transparency in India:

1. International Standards and Best Practices:
   • Global Influence: India may align itself with international standards and best practices on judicial transparency. Adopting mechanisms inspired by successful practices in other jurisdictions could shape the evolution of transparency measures within the Indian judiciary.
   • Supporting Global Trend: The adoption of open justice principles in the United Kingdom and Canada, where access to court information and proceedings is actively promoted, may influence India's approach to transparency.
      
2. Rise of Global Judicial Networks and Collaborations:
   • Global Influence: Increased collaboration among judiciaries worldwide could influence India's approach to transparency. Participation in global judicial networks and partnerships may facilitate the exchange of ideas and best practices.
   • Supporting Global Trend: Initiatives such as the Global Judicial Integrity Network by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) exemplify the global trend of fostering collaboration among judiciaries to enhance transparency and accountability.

The future outlook for judicial transparency in India holds promise, with anticipated developments driven by advancements in technology, a commitment to ethical standards, and global influences.[47] The synergy between domestic aspirations and international trends will likely play a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of judicial transparency in India.[48] As the nation continues its journey towards a more transparent and accountable judiciary, these anticipated developments and global influences contribute to the ongoing evolution of India's legal landscape.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis of the transparency and accountability of judicial functions in India has illuminated critical facets shaping the Indian judiciary's role in upholding justice and maintaining public trust. The exploration of various dimensions, from the constitutional framework to technological interventions, has provided valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by the judicial system.[49]

The constitutional foundation regarding judicial accountability, intertwined with the importance of an independent judiciary and the separation of powers, underscores the delicate balance required to ensure the autonomy and accountability of the judiciary. [50]Existing mechanisms, such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), have been scrutinized, emphasizing the need for continuous evaluation and potential reforms to strengthen accountability structures.[51]

Challenges related to opaque proceedings and inconsistent reporting practices have been identified, raising concerns about the effectiveness of current transparency measures. Landmark cases and judicial pronouncements have played a pivotal role in shaping the discourse on transparency, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to openness and the right to information.

Public perception, influenced by media and public opinion, emerged as a significant factor in ensuring judicial accountability. The role of bar associations in maintaining judicial standards and advocating for transparency cannot be overstated. Moreover, the study recognized the transformative impact of technological interventions, advocating for continued advancements in e-filing systems and online accessibility of court records.

The recommendations and proposed reforms underscore the necessity for transparent judicial appointments and improved reporting mechanisms to foster public trust. Ethical considerations in judicial conduct were explored, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between ethical standards and the transparency of judicial functions.

Public education and awareness programs, alongside the active involvement of civil society, were identified as instrumental in promoting transparency and accountability. Looking ahead, the anticipated developments and global trends are expected to shape the trajectory of judicial transparency in India.

In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis provides a foundation for ongoing discussions and potential reforms aimed at fortifying the transparency and accountability of the Indian judiciary. The findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach involving legal, technological, and societal dimensions to ensure a judiciary that not only stands independent but also remains transparent, accountable, and aligned with evolving global standards.

End Notes:

1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261.
2. People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
3. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 889.
4. The Constitution of India, 1950
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 S.C.C. 494.
6. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India (Sixth Indian Impression, OUP 2010) 17
7. In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (C) No.51 of 2006, decided on April 18, 2011, available at www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in, accessed on September 10, 2016.
8. The Judge and the Common Man, 32 MOD L.R. 601 as cited in O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, THE COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 310 (2008).
9. In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (CIVIL) NO. 857 of 2015, decided on May 11, 2016, available at accessed on September 10, 2016.
10. Five cases of judicial activism that has put govt. in a spot, Business Standard, BS Web Team, Mumbai May 17, 2016, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/current-affairs/five-cases-of-judicial-activism-that-hasput-govt-in-a-spot-116051700587_1.html, accessed on September 10, 2016.
11. In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-10-16_1444997560.pdf
12. P. J. Alan Casey, "Public Interest Litigation in India," Indian Journal of Legal Theory, vol. X, no. 2, 2018, pp. 224.
13. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India (Sixth Indian Impression, OUP 2010) 17
14. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India and Others, decided on 11 April, 2008 by the Supreme Court of India.
15. Granville Austin, "The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation," Oxford University Press
16. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
17. Upendra Baxi, "Judicial Activism: Indian Experience," Oxford University Press
18. Contempt of Court, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
19. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
20. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.
21. It is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India: see generally All India Judge's Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 ¶ 24; S.C. Advocates –on- Record v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 268, 421; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149,197,198; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261,301; Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1213, 1232.
22. S. P. Sathe, "Collegium System: A Critical Analysis," Indian Law Journal, vol.1, no. 4, 2013, pp. 84
23. Upendra Baxi, "The Indian Supreme Court and Politics," Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 8, no. 3, 2003.
24. Granville Austin, "Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience," Oxford University Press, 2005.
25. Arghya Sengupta, "Access to Justice: Judicial Delays and the Role of the Judiciary," Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 7, no. 12, 2009.
26. Subhash C. Kashyap, "Our Parliament," National Book Trust
27. H. M. Seervai, "Constitutional Law of India," Universal Law Publishing, 2011.
28. M. P. Jain, "Indian Constitutional Law," LexisNexis, 2022.
29. V.R. Krishna Iyer, Limits of Judicial Conduct, THE HINDU, August 7, 2009, available at http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/07/stories/2009080754240900.htm (Last visited on December 02, 2023).
30. Durga Das Basu, "Introduction to the Constitution of India," LexisNexis, 2018.
31. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India and Others (2015).
32. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.
33. Prashant Bhushan, Judicial Accountability or Illusion: The National Judicial Council Bill available at http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/judicial_acc_or_illusion_pb.pdf, (Last visited on January 13, 2010).
34. Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, (1975) 2 SCC 159
35. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428
36. Court on its Own Motion v. State, (2011) 172 DLT 393
37. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1456
38. Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2011) 1 SCC 496
39. Frances Kahn Zemans, The Accountable Judge: Guardian of Judicial Independence, 72 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 625 (1999).
40. Prashant Bhushan, Judicial Accountability: Asset Disclosures and Beyond, ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY, September 12, 2009, 8.
41. P.J. Dhan, Dr. Ambedkar and the Principle of Independence of Judiciary, 24 INDIAN BAR REVIEW 97 (1997).
42. Sriram Panchu, make declaring judges' assets mandatory for all further appointments, THE HINDU, September 8, 2009, available at http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article16588.ece (Last visited on September 9, 2023).
43. Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (Adopted by Full Bench of Supreme Court on May 7, 1997). available at http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/restatement_of_values_jud_life.pdf (Last visited on January 17, 2010).
44. 103rd Report prepared by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat New Delhi in September 2020. The Report was prepared by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, comprising eminent members of the Bar like Shri Bhupender Yadav, Mr Vivek K. Tankha, Mr P. Wilson and thirty other members of Parliament.
45. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), (2018) 10 SCC 639
46. R. S. Misra v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010
47. Nupur Thapliyal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh., W.P. No. 9669 of 2021 (Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
48. Judiciary was a subject of the Constituent Assembly Debates on July 29, 1947. While inter alia, there was debate regarding the independence of judiciary and enshrining a distinct provision for the same, one does not come across any discussion on making the judiciary accountable to its citizenry. See Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.VIII, 218.
49. Prem Chandra, Ashutosh Garg, 'Judicial Accountability and Transparency in India: Flaws and Road Ahead'
50. Donald Rowat, Why an Ombudsman to supervise the Courts? 10 OMBUDSMAN JOURNAL 1992 as cited in Tikaram, supra note 11, 1232.
51. Anuradha Dhadhge Girme, 'Judicial Accountability and Comparative Approach.

Written By: Ankita Yadav, 4th Year, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida