Are the current mechanisms effective in dealing with judicial corruption?

Is impeachment an effective mechanism for judicial accountability, giving dependence on political consent?

Sanjay Hegde: Away from having a mechanism for accountability, the process of impeachment is designed to mold judges. Unless a proposal supports two-thirds of the present and voting members, at the same time there is not an absolute majority in each House of Parliament, judges cannot be removed. To assume that the risk of impeachment acts as a preventive, misleading, given how such action is successful. Instead what is needed is an internal mechanism within the judiciary to address transparently severe misconduct. Such a system will povel a long way to strengthen public confidence in the institute.

Alok Prasanna Kumar: Impeachment enhances judicial freedom by insulating judges with political vengeance. To end this, the process is deliberately rigid, both a detailed parliamentary process and evidence of ‘abuse or disability’. These are to prevent high threshold executive from using impeachment, which are seen as uncomfortable to remove judges.

We also believe that judicial freedom is always in existence, but it is a relatively modern concept. Historically, judges served to give the justice of the emperor, not investigating the power of the state or protecting personal rights. It began to change with the rise of constitutional democracy.

Is legislative improvement in the in-house process of the Supreme Court necessary to address judicial misconduct?

Sanjay Hegde: The in-house process was established to prevent misuse of legal processes against the judiciary, especially when judicial decisions offend the executive. A major example is the Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. Gujarat (1991) state, where the Supreme Court intervened after the Gujarat police officers abused Nadid’s Chief Judicial Magistrate, and issued guidelines to arrest judicial officers. To protect misuse, the judiciary introduced an internal investigation mechanism before allowing prosecution. However, this structure may benefit from legislative intervention.

Alok Prasanna Kumar: In cases of corruption, it is particularly difficult to prosecute in a country like us, where enforcement institutions are weak, the ability to secure punishment is limited, and judges enjoy a degree of institutional security. A striking example has been acquitted by former Judge Nirmal Yadav, former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after about 15 years the Supreme Court-Classing Committee found enough evidence to prosecute him. He said, I agree with Sanjay that there is definitely scope for strengthening the in-house process.

Should the investigation report be made public under this mechanism?

Alok Prasanna Kumar: Yes. We have seen a welcome change by the Supreme Court towards transparency in handling Justice Yashwant Verma case. In an era where judicial conduct is closely investigated through social and mass media, ambiguity in alleged judicial corruption cases is no longer viable. However, such transparency may not have an ad hoc reaction to crises; It should be given institutional form. At the same time, it is necessary that the investigation process increases the principles of natural justice and protects the rights of the accused. Although rigorous procedural rules may not be possible, a balanced structure is necessary – one that commands the trust of all stakeholders and prevents the investigation process from becoming a subject of further litigation.

Sanjay Hegde: I believe that increased transparency in the functioning of inquiry committees is welcome. However, in this particular case, the court’s decision seems to be shaped by an extraordinary level of public speculation. While showing the recovery of unaccounted cash from the release of the video clearly, the court pre-implemented any perception that it was adapting a member of the high judiciary. If the footage had surfaced through other informal channels, it could have severely reduced institutional credibility. He said, such decisions should be done with caution and evaluated based on the case-by-case, ensuring that the right of the accused is fully preserved for a fair test. The court can also benefit from appointing dedicated communication personnel to prevent misinformation and to prevent public confidence.

The Justice Verma case has renewed the call to revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission. Should the government say in judicial appointments?

Sanjay Hegde: The government already holds a seat on the table. The real question is whether it should erase an empty check. Before the collegium finalizes its recommendations, informal consultations with the executive are often consumed. After forwarding the names, the government maintains the power to flag the Intelligence Bureau input for the reconsideration of the collegium. There are many examples where the government has stopped appointments by sitting on recommendations. This real executive veto has prevented many qualified judges from reaching the Supreme Court.

Alok Prasanna Kumar: We should no longer call it a collegium system; It now looks like a search-and-selection committee. While the High Court and the Supreme Court recommends the names of the collegium, the central government follows a pick-end-to-person approach. This has stopped many qualified candidates from subjugating themselves to an opaque and often derogatory process. Eventually, it does not matter that judges are appointed by combining the government, judiciary, or both. What does transparency matter. The collegium led by DI Chandrachud made progress on this front, in which the argument behind each recommendation was expanded. Sadly, the practice has been stopped.

Should judicial standards and accountability bills be reconsidered?

Alok Prasanna Kumar: I don’t think so. It fails to address many important intervals. What we want is a more calibrated and institutional reaction. The first step should be to define clear, applied judicial standards. Consider the issue of family relations in the judiciary – each judge must be made mandatory to disclose relatives practicing in the same court. Once disclosed, either the judge should be transferred or the relative should be stopped from appearing before that court. Establishing more oversight bodies is not a solution. These institutions will be essentially staffed by retired judges, eliminating the same structural flaws that we want to take measures.

Sanjay Hegde: More than legislative improvement, we need to focus on the fact that the legal profession is already operated through an informal system of colleague reviews. Long before a judge gets involved in a corruption scam, it is usually raised inside the court corridors. This colleague will be a meaningful step ahead to institutionalize this colleague review process by systematically incorporating inputs from the Bar Association and fellow judges. This will strengthen internal accountability.

Should court laws be contempt to allow more public inquiry into judicial conduct?

Alok Prasanna Kumar: We can liberalize the contempt of court laws, but unless the results are results for judges that arbitrarily apply them, such reforms will have little impact. It is also important to assess the context in which contempt is initiated – is it stems from the anger or fear of a judge, or is it a measured institutional reaction to anyone that intentionally spreads lies to reduce public belief in the judiciary? He said, there should be a place for good discourse on judicial corruption, which is not a voice of legitimate concerns without a viewer of criminal contempt.

To listen to the conversation In The Hindu Parle Podcast

Published – April 11, 2025 01:39 AM IST