The primary challenge regarding judicial accountability in India is that, while complaints and allegations of misconduct against the judiciary are constantly rising, the only mechanism available to Parliament to address this is the removal of judges from office. If a judge resigns during this process, the impeachment proceedings against them are dropped.
Complaints regarding the misconduct of judges in India are steadily increasing. In 1993, Parliament initiated impeachment proceedings against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Chandigarh High Court over allegations of misappropriating funds for personal gain. Justices P. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen resigned in 2011 due to corruption allegations. Justice C.S. Karnan was sentenced to six months in prison for accusing Supreme Court judges of corruption. In 2018, three Supreme Court judges held a press conference against Chief Justice Dipak Misra regarding the improper allocation of cases for hearing. In 2019, a charge sheet was filed against Justice S.N. Shukla of the Allahabad High Court on corruption charges. Also, in 2019, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi faced allegations of sexual harassment from a female court employee.
A recent case involves Justice Yashwant Varma (Allahabad High Court), who was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court when a pile of burnt currency notes was discovered at his official residence in Delhi in March 2025. He was immediately transferred back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, and was not assigned any judicial work. The Supreme Court conducted an internal inquiry, found him guilty, and asked him to resign; however, he refused to do so. Consequently, the Supreme Court recommended to the President of India that impeachment proceedings be initiated against him. Parliament has initiated impeachment proceedings against Justice Verma, which remain pending. Although Justice Verma resigned on April 10, 2026, the President has not yet accepted his resignation; consequently, the pending impeachment proceedings will continue. If the impeachment succeeds, Justice Verma could be deprived of post-retirement benefits. Conversely, if his resignation were accepted prior to the impeachment, he would be entitled to all post-retirement benefits.
In a separate development, in February 2026, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a chapter regarding the judiciary in a Class 8 textbook published by the NCERT. The Court ordered the immediate removal of the chapter, citing that it undermined public confidence in the judiciary. The chapter was titled ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’ and discussed, among other things, corruption within the judiciary. Subsequently, the NCERT removed the controversial chapter from all published copies of the book.
These issues raise concerns regarding the accountability of the Indian judiciary.
Balancing Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability
Judicial independence is a core element of the Indian polity. Without an independent and impartial system of justice, the success of democracy in India cannot be envisioned. An independent and impartial judiciary not only effectively protects the rights of the people but also strengthens citizens’ faith in the democratic political system. The framers of the Constitution incorporated several provisions to ensure the independence of the Indian judiciary. The judiciary has also strived to maintain its independence from the government. Overall, the Indian judiciary has functioned independently and succeeded in protecting and expanding the rights and liberties of citizens.
However, judicial accountability is also a crucial issue. Internal challenges—such as corruption and a lack of integrity—necessitate a mechanism for judicial accountability. In simple terms, accountability means taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions. However, given the need for judicial independence, judicial accountability cannot be imposed externally by the government; nor can accountability be enforced at the cost of judicial independence.
Therefore, we need to strike a balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence. To achieve this balance, an effective mechanism for internal judicial accountability must be developed, as a claim to independence cannot be sustained without such accountability. Internal accountability implies that the judiciary ensures its own accountability through self-regulation. Judicial independence and judicial accountability must go hand in hand.
The Supreme Court has taken some initiatives in this direction. In May 1997, the full bench of the Court agreed upon a specific code of conduct for members of the judiciary, officially known as the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’. This code comprises 16 rules to be observed by members of the judiciary—such as not accepting gifts from the general public and recusing themselves from cases in which they have a direct or indirect interest. The guiding principle of this code of conduct is that it is not enough for justice to be done; it must also appear to be done. A similar code of conduct was also announced by international jurists in 2002, which is known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. These principles are internationally recognized standards for the ethical and accountable conduct of judges. They were developed by the Judicial Integrity Group and endorsed by UN Economic and Social Council.
However, the judiciary needs to focus on greater transparency and the effective implementation of this code. While asserting judicial independence, the judiciary must also pay attention to its ethical conduct; judicial accountability is, in fact, a corollary of judicial independence.
Conclusion
Judicial accountability fosters the rule of law, public trust in the judiciary, and institutional responsibility. To sustain public faith in Indian democracy, we require a robust system for both judicial independence and judicial accountability. The greatest challenge lies in striking the right balance between the two. In the interest of judicial independence, a system of judicial accountability cannot be imposed from the outside; therefore, the judiciary itself must develop a practical and effective mechanism for accountability. This would further strengthen its claim to judicial independence against external entities like the executive and the legislature.
Leave a Reply