6. Judicial Accountability: The Mechanism for Complaints Against Higher Judiciary

The Union Law Minister\'s recent disclosure in the Lok Sabha regarding 8,630 complaints received by the Chief Justice of India\'s (CJI) office from 2016 to 2025 has highlighted the critical discourse on judicial accountability. While the judiciary remains an independent pillar of democracy, the absence of a statutory grievance redressal mechanism for the higher judiciary (Supreme Court and High Courts) necessitates a reliance on internal procedures and the constitutional process of removal. Key Summary Points for UPSC • Magnitude of Complaints: Between 2016 and 2025, the CJI’s office recorded 8,630 complaints against sitting judges, with 2024 seeing the highest volume at 1,170. This reflects growing public engagement and scrutiny of judicial conduct. • The \'In-House Procedure\': In the absence of a legislative framework, complaints regarding misconduct or impropriety are handled via the Supreme Court\'s 1999 \'In-House Procedure.\' This internal mechanism allows the CJI or High Court Chief Justices to probe allegations through fact-finding committees. • Restatement of Values: Judicial conduct is guided by the \'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life\' (adopted in 1997), which serves as an ethical code for the higher judiciary but lacks statutory force for enforcement. • Grievance Redressal Channels: Complaints are often routed through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). However, the executive merely acts as a post-office, forwarding these to the respective Chief Justices for action. • Legislative Lacuna: While the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, governs the removal process, there is currently no legal oversight body to handle \'minor\' misconduct that does not warrant impeachment, leading to calls for reviving the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. • Confidentiality vs. Accountability: The \'In-House\' process is predominantly confidential to maintain judicial dignity. However, critics argue this opacity hinders public trust, especially when outcomes of 8,630 complaints remain undisclosed. Constitutional and Legal Provisions • Article 124(4) & 217(1)(b): Provide for the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges by the President only on the grounds of \'proved misbehaviour or incapacity,\' following a special majority vote in Parliament. • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Regulates the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. It involves a three-member committee (SC Judge, HC CJ, and a distinguished jurist).• Article 235: Grants the High Court \'control\' over subordinate courts, including disciplinary matters. Crucially, no such administrative control exists over the High Court or Supreme Court judges themselves. • Separation of Powers (Article 50): While mandated to keep the judiciary independent from the executive, this principle is often cited to limit external oversight of judicial conduct. Important Definitions • Proved Misbehaviour: Though not defined in the Constitution, it includes corruption, lack of integrity, or actions unbecoming of a judge that damage the public’s esteem of the office. • Impeachment: The colloquial term for the rigorous parliamentary process of removing a judge; notably, no judge of the higher judiciary has ever been successfully impeached in India. • Major Questions Doctrine: Often discussed in legal circles, it posits that agencies (or here, the judiciary) cannot decide matters of major national significance without clear legislative backing— relevant to the debate on creating an external oversight body. • CPGRAMS: An online platform for citizens to lodge grievances against any government entity; for the judiciary, it acts only as a forwarding mechanism. Conclusion The disclosure of thousands of complaints against the higher judiciary underscores a \'yawning gap\' in India’s legal architecture. While the current \'In-House Procedure\' protects the judiciary from executive interference, the lack of transparency regarding actions taken on these 8,630 complaints risks eroding public confidence. Striking a balance between judicial independence and a robust, transparent accountability framework remains one of the most pressing challenges for India’s legal reforms. UPSC Relevance • GS Paper II: Structure, organization, and functioning of the Judiciary; Appointment and removal of judges; Judicial accountability and independence. • GS Paper IV (Ethics): Integrity and values in judicial life; Public service and accountability mechanisms. • Current Affairs: Understanding the data-driven reality of judicial grievances and the limitations of existing CPGRAMS/In-House mechanisms.