Judicial Integrity and Accountability in Higher Judiciary

Key Highlights & Summary

• Allegations Against Acting Chief Justice: Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) detailing grave allegations of maladministration, roster manipulation, and nepotism against the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.  

• Concerns Over Prolonged Tenure: Justice Sharma served as Acting Chief Justice for nearly 11 months, raising institutional concerns regarding extended governance by acting heads rather than permanent appointments.

 • Bar Association Boycott: Escalating discontent led lawyers at the Rajasthan High Court to stage sit-in protests, forcing the Acting Chief Justice to abstain from judicial proceedings. 

• Supreme Court Collegium Intervention: On August 31, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Sanjay Agrawal as the regular Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. 

• Gaps in Institutional Response: Despite verifiable complaints from a sitting apex court judge, delays in invoking formal internal disciplinary procedures highlighted institutional hesitation in addressing judicial misconduct. 

• Sub-optimal Accountability Mechanisms: The episode exposes fundamental flaws in evaluating, investigating, and disciplining members of the higher judiciary under existing framework rules. 

Essential Definitions

 • Master of the Roster: The exclusive administrative prerogative enjoyed by the Chief Justice (or Acting Chief Justice) of a High Court or Supreme Court to constitute benches and allocate judicial cases. 

• In-House Mechanism: An internal, non-statutory investigatory framework adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 to examine allegations of ethical breaches or misconduct against sitting higher court judges without resorting to immediate parliamentary removal proceedings.

 Legal and Constitutional Framework 

• Articles 124(4) & 217(1)(b): Prescribe the constitutional procedure for the removal (impeachment) of Supreme Court and High Court judges on proven grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity through an address by Parliament. 

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Regulates the statutory procedure for investigating charges of misbehaviour or incapacity initiated by a motion in Parliament prior to impeachment. 

• K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991): The Supreme Court held that prior written permission of the CJI is mandatory before registering a First Information Report (FIR) or conducting a criminal investigation against a sitting higher court judge. 

• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010: A proposed legislative initiative to enforce asset declarations and establish statutory complaint mechanisms against judges, which ultimately lapsed without becoming law. 

Conclusion Addressing judicial corruption requires urgent structural reforms in appointments, roster allocation, and disciplinary oversight. Establishing an independent statutory accountability mechanism while safeguarding judicial independence remains crucial to preserving public faith in the judiciary. 

UPSC Relevance

 • GS Paper II (Polity & Governance): Structure, organization, and functioning of the Judiciary; Judicial Independence vs. Judicial Accountability; the Collegium System; and executive-judicial dynamics. 

• GS Paper IV (Ethics & Human Interface): Institutional ethics, integrity in public office, conflict of interest, and moral leadership in statutory bodies.