Sukriti Yagyasen et al. International Journal of Recent Research Aspects ISSN: 2349-7688, Vol. 3, Issue 4, December 2016, pp. 78-81 © 2016 IJRRA All Rights Reserved page - 78- Judicial Accountability in India Sukriti Yagyasen Assistant Professor, School of Law, Galgotias University Abstract: At the outset, one needs to understand and appreciate the idea of demanding judicial accountability. As stated earlier, accountability primarily entails instilling a sense of transparency, subjecting the judicial regime to a strict public scrutiny so as to prevent any judicial delinquency from infiltrating. At the same time, the long-standing debate between accountability impinging upon the independence of judiciary often becomes imperative to be addressed. An interesting observation surrounding the innate resistance between the two has been drawn from the Constitution as the Constitution makers did not expressly provide for any mechanism to make the judiciary accountable. The underlying presumption behind the same was to prevent the violation of the fundamental edifice of judicial independence; a prerequisite for a free and fair judiciary to exist. 1 The objective sought to be achieved was to promote accountability through a mechanism of self-regulation without compromising the facet of independence. Keywords: Judicial Accountability, India. I. INTRODUCTION “The judge infuses life and blood into the dry skeleton provided by the legislature and creates a living organism appropriate and adequate to meet the needs of the society.” - Justice P.N. Bhagwati II. JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: A THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING It is rather interesting to note that it has only been in recent times, that a public outcry for holding the judiciary accountable has been a matter of public debate and deliberations in all corners of the world, thereby making it a global phenomenon. As Justice Sir Moti Tikaram of Fiji notes, judiciary is “no longer a sacrosanct and inviolable sanctuary of its occupants.” 2 While the debate regarding the need for judicial accountability has gained significant momentum in the recent years with civil society and the media, assuming the role of alert watchdogs, a question to ponder upon often has been the need for judicial accountability. In its Comments on the Judges Enquiry Bill 2006, the Committee on Judicial Accountability noted that the dire need of an accountability mechanism stems from the over-assertiveness of the judiciary to the extent of declaring themselves immune from any form of enquiry into their actions. Such a reprehensible and autocratic practice makes it all the more onerous to ensure that an accountability mechanism be operative as it is imperative to note that Judiciary is about the law and not above the law. Accountability is imperative as, inter- alia judges are appointed in most countries and thus the public at large has no control over them. Also, there are hardly any provisions disciplining the judges and this is deeply associated with what Rowat terms as “arrogance of office” leading to the arbitrary use of discretionary powers. 1 R.S. Pathak, “Administration of Justice and Public Accountability”, 15 INDIAN BAR REVIEW 213 (1988). 2 Sir Moti Tikaram, “Public Accountability – Who Judges the Judges?” 19 COMMW L.BULL.1231 (1993). 3 Sri B.L.N. Swamy, “Judicial Accountability” 74 Cuttack Law Times 17 (1992). 4 T Devidas and Hem Lall Bhandari, “Judicial Accountability” 48(1) JILI 95 (2006). III. JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA A Judge like every other public servant and Political Administrator is expected to exhibit good moral character and maintain purity of judicial administration. All the eyes of the citizen are, therefore, focused on the judges’ who is judged not only through his performance but also through his actions. His conduct in and out of the Court Hall is liable for accounting and explaining to the citizen at large. In fine, the principle that Justice should not only be done but also should appear to have been done prevailed all through the ages explains fairness as a part of accountability. 3 Hindrances to speedier and informal access to justice can be considered as ‘un-Indian’. The king in the ancient India ensured complainer with every applicable law and restored the status quo ante the violation. The administrative process was informal and quick and it was regarded as part of the duty of the king to strictly and impartially enforce law. It was his duty to protect the people at any cost. The king was punishable a thousand times more than the common man for any violation of law. Rank imposed heavier obligations to inflict heavier punishments for failure of duty. Even the Chief Justice would be punished as severely as the king for violation of law. Clearly, it was the duty of the State to ensure compliance with every law. The subject had to inform the king of the injury or wrong and thereafter it was the duty of the king to render speedy justice strictly in accordance with law. It s a matter of history how these native ingenuities and devices for speedy delivery of justice were lost in the quagmire of power and the state became less and less concerned about approximating the ‘is’ to the ‘ought’. 4 Judicial accountability, therefore, is the process by which the judiciary is responsible to the people on whose behalf it exercises the judicial power under the Constitution and the law of the country. In understanding the concept of judicial accountability, distinction should be made between the conduct of the judge in the discharge of his judicial function and the actual judicial decision or determination. Accountability relates to the former and not the latter except