Judicial Independence and Accountability

• Recent judicial inquiry has reignited discussions on the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
• Concerns over internal integrity and transparency in the Indian judiciary are now more prominent.

Key Constitutional Provisions

• Separation of Powers: Ensures functional autonomy among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
• Security of Tenure: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot be arbitrarily dismissed, promoting impartiality (Articles 124 & 217).
• Fixed Service Conditions: Non-variable salaries and expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund of India enhance judicial independence.
• Impeachment for Removal: Judges can only be removed through a parliamentary impeachment process (Articles 124 & 217).
• Judicial Review Powers: Courts can protect fundamental rights and uphold the Constitution (Articles 32 & 226).
• Contempt Powers: Courts can punish contempt to maintain authority and dignity.

Challenges Facing the Judiciary

1. Judicial Appointments:
   • Lack of transparency and delay in the collegium system, leading to nepotism.
   • National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) was struck down, limiting accountability.
2. Pendency of Cases:
   • Over 80,982 cases pending in the Supreme Court as of February 2025.
   • Average case duration is 3 to 5 years, with some lasting decades.
3. Judicial Vacancies:
   • Over 5,600 vacancies across all judicial levels, affecting court productivity.
4. Infrastructure Gaps:
   • Poor IT infrastructure in district courts; only 45% have electronic display facilities.
5. Lack of Diversity:
   • Women account for 9.3% of Supreme Court judges and 13.4% of High Court judges.
   • Marginalized communities are underrepresented, affecting public trust.
6. Judicial Overreach:
   • Concerns about courts exceeding their mandate, as seen in cases like Anoop Baranwal.
7. Executive Interference:
   • Transfer of judges raises questions about political influence.
8. Corruption Allegations:
   • High-profile corruption cases have prompted inquiries, undermining public confidence.
9. Access to Justice:
   • High litigation costs and legal complexity hinder access, particularly for marginalized groups.

Recent Reforms

• National Mission for Justice Delivery: Focuses on reducing delays and enhancing accountability.
• Judicial Infrastructure Boost: ₹9,755 crore allocated for court infrastructure.
• E-Courts Project: Aims to digitize the judiciary; 99.5% of court complexes connected for video conferencing.
• Fast Track Courts: 754 Fast Track Special Courts operational, addressing case backlogs.
• ADR Mechanisms: Strengthening mediation frameworks to reduce litigation burdens.

Recommendations for Strengthening the Judiciary

• Reform Judicial Appointments: Introduce a Judicial Appointments Commission for transparency and diversity.
• Address Vacancies: Ensure timely judicial appointments and increase the sanctioned strength.
• Upgrade Infrastructure: Invest in modern court facilities and IT systems.
• Enhance Legal Aid and ADR: Promote pre-litigation mediation and expand access to legal aid.
• Ensure Timely Justice: Fast-track mechanisms for undertrials and disadvantaged groups.
• Improve Accountability: Establish independent judicial complaints commissions.
• Enhance Public Engagement: Promote transparency through live-streaming and multilingual judgments.

Way Forward

• Judicial reform in India must address deep-rooted issues to ensure transparency, timely justice, and merit-based appointments, essential for public confidence and constitutional integrity.

Mains Answer Writing Practice Question

“Judicial independence is essential, but not absolute.” In light of recent debates on judicial appointments and accountability, discuss how India can balance independence with transparency in the judiciary. (200 words)