Dilemma of judges: on the judiciary, its accountability

The Lokpal’s decision is that the High Court judges are responsible for its jurisdiction and The Supreme Court ordered it Increase your own proposal more than the only question of law. This issue concerns both the independence and accountability of the judiciary. The court, government law officials and senior advocates found that harassing the decision of the Lokpal is understood, as many people believe that judicial freedom would be reduced if judges of constitutional courts are made accountable to the Lokpal, Even though they fall under the definition of ‘public servant’ ‘under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The view of Lokpal seems to be wrong. There is nothing to suggest that the judges of the Superior Court were ever considered under its remit. Last month, under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court Judge M Khanwilkar, the Lokpal dismissed a complaint of corruption against a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) that the Lokpal Act, 2013 did not worry about the judges of the Apex Court and Its reference to “individuals”, which is a member of any body or authority created by an Act of Parliament, an institution established by the Constitution cannot be implemented in the Supreme Court. However, in relation to the High Court judges, it was stated that the High Courts established by the laws that make the concerned states were statutory bodies, and their judges were “individuals” within the meaning of Section 14 of the Lokpal Act.

The freedom of the judiciary was the most important idea when the court. It was held in Veerwamy vs. Union of India (1991) that no case could be registered against him without consulting the CJI, even though it was also said that Judge Public Servants were the Corruption Act under the prevention of judges. Based on this principle, the Lokpal mentions the complaint to CJI. While the Lokpal ruling is reviewed, it may be time to address the issue of accountability in the rare incident of reliable corruption allegations of reliable corruption arising against a judge. The case is now dealt with by the court through an in-house process, only when the Chief Justice of the High Court, or CJI or President receives a complaint. If the allegations appear correct, ask the concerned judges to resign, they are available to deny judicial work or recommend them to remove them through Parliament. Some judges are transferred from one High Court to another, but are corruption alleged that it is never revealed. The court should see if the current mechanism is sufficient or needs to expand to include reliable follow -up action such as an independent prosecution under its supervision. Both accountability and freedom should be equally important for the judiciary.