The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh has made public allegations of misconduct, corruption, and political bias against Justice N.V. Ramana from the Supreme Court and several judges from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This is a historical event, as such assertions have seldom been made in the open.
Legal Safeguards for Judicial Independence
Within the Indian Constitution, various measures are set in place to protect the independence of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Key amongst these are Articles 121 and 211 which prohibit Parliament and State Legislatures from discussing the conduct of judges. These articles ensure that a judge can only be removed through impeachment.
Despite these protections, the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister bypassed them by making the accusations publicly and not within the legislative assembly therefore, Article 211 does not apply to his actions. Nevertheless, such moves can potentially tarnish the judiciary’s reputation and could prompt contempt of court proceedings.
Addressing Judicial Misconduct
Judges may face removal from their roles on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’. However, the gravity of the actions would determine whether removal is the appropriate sanction. Other times, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is tasked with investigating serious complaints of misconduct.
The In-House Procedure for Investigating Misconduct
Since 1997, an ‘in-house procedure’ has been used for investigating misconduct charges. This process commences when the CJI receives a complaint against a High Court judge. After an initial assessment, if the issue necessitates a deeper probe, a three-member committee can be formed to investigate the accusations further. Following the investigation, if wrongdoings are identified, two types of recommendations can be issued: urges for resignation or withdrawal of judicial work.
Different Procedures for Different Levels
While the in-house procedure applies to judges of the High Court, the process varies slightly when it comes to investigating the Chief Justice of a High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court. The panels differ in membership according to the position of the accused.
The Absence of Separate Provisions for CJI
One notable exception that emerges from the in-house procedure is that there are no separate provisions concerning allegations against the CJI. This is an area that might warrant further attention in order to fully uphold judicial integrity.
Separation of Powers and the Way Forward
The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judiciary is a key tenet of the Indian Constitution as noted in the Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala case in 1973. This principle underpins the functionality of the state, with the Constitution serving as the guiding document for all three branches of government. Any interactions amongst these branches should ideally involve a delicate balance and mutual respect. The allegations against the judges can be a point of discussion in evaluating how effectively the current system maintains this balance.
