CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDGES
1. Context
Judiciary draws its power from two fountains, public acceptance of the authority of the judiciary and the integrity of the judiciary. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002 presents a framework to regulate judicial conduct
2. Judicial Ethics
- The judiciary derives its authority from two key sources: public trust in its legitimacy and the integrity of its members. Over time, the judiciary has formalized the best practices of judicial conduct through established codes.
- One such framework, the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997, serves as a guiding code of ethics for judges.
- The foremost principle of this code emphasizes that a judge's actions must reinforce public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality.
- It specifically warns that any behavior by a judge, whether in an official or personal capacity, that undermines this perception must be avoided.
- Additionally, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002 provide a comprehensive framework for regulating judicial behavior.
- These principles stress that a judge's conduct, both on and off the bench, should inspire and uphold public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity.
- While recognizing a judge's right to freedom of expression, the principles require that judges act in ways that uphold the dignity of their office and maintain the judiciary’s independence and fairness.
- Importantly, they also call for judges to acknowledge and respect societal diversity, ensuring equal treatment for all.
3. Impeachment of Judge
- The Constitution stipulates that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed by the President following a successful impeachment process, based on “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
- For such a removal to proceed, the motion must be supported by a special majority—comprising a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Apart from motions for removal, the Constitution bars the legislature from discussing allegations of judicial misconduct in any other scenario.
- To address instances of serious allegations against judges, the Supreme Court has developed an internal procedure that allows judges to voluntarily step down, thus avoiding the public spectacle of impeachment. This process, formally adopted in 1999 and made public in 2014, outlines steps for handling complaints against judges.
- For High Court judges, complaints may be directed to the President, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. If the Chief Justice of the High Court receives the complaint, they may request a response from the judge in question, depending on the severity of the allegations. If the matter warrants further investigation, the complaint and the judge's response are forwarded to the CJI.
- When the President receives a complaint, it is referred to the CJI, who can either handle it directly or forward it to the relevant High Court Chief Justice for preliminary inquiry. If serious allegations emerge, the CJI can convene a fact-finding committee comprising two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge to investigate the matter.
- Should the committee find sufficient grounds for removal, the CJI may advise the judge to retire. If the judge refuses, the CJI can inform the President and Prime Minister, providing the committee’s findings, thereby initiating the process for impeachment
4. Present Controversy
- Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has faced widespread criticism for his remarks about the Muslim community during an event organized by the legal cell of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad at the High Court premises on December 8.
- Justice Yadav stated that the country should operate according to the wishes of the majority living in Hindustan. He claimed that while one community teaches its children values like kindness and tolerance, the same cannot be expected from children of "another community," particularly when they are exposed to practices such as animal slaughter. Addressing the push for a Uniform Civil Code, he commented that Hindus venerate women as goddesses, contrasting this with practices such as polygamy, Halala, and triple talaq in the "other community."
- The Supreme Court has acknowledged media reports regarding Justice Yadav's speech and confirmed that it has sought details from the Allahabad High Court, stating that the matter is under consideration.
- Justice Yadav's comments prompted the All India Lawyers Union to write to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, expressing concern that his statements reflected a drift away from democratic principles towards a "Hindutva Rashtra."
- Additionally, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, led by advocate Prashant Bhushan, accused Justice Yadav of violating his oath of office by making communal remarks at a politically charged event. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has reportedly called for the judge's impeachment
5. Collegium System in Judiciary
The Collegium System is a method used in India to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It involves a committee of senior judges who recommend names for appointment. This system has been in place since the 1990s and has been the subject of much debate and controversy
Composition
-
Supreme Court Appointments:
The Collegium comprises the CJI and four senior-most Supreme Court judges. -
High Court Appointments:
The Collegium consists of the CJI, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
|
How does the Collegium System work?
|
6. Origin and Evolution of Collegium
-
First Judges Case (1981):
The Supreme Court ruled that the executive had primacy in appointing judges, but the President was required to consult the Chief Justice of India (CJI). -
Second Judges Case (1993):
The Court overturned the earlier ruling, introducing the Collegium System. It emphasized that the CJI's opinion, formed in consultation with the senior-most judges, should hold primacy in judicial appointments. -
Third Judges Case (1998):
This case further refined the system, establishing that the Collegium would consist of the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
|
For Prelims: Collegium system, National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), Supreme court, High court, Intelligence Bureau (IB), First Judges case, Second Judges Case, Third Judges Case, Article 124(2), Article 217, Law Commission, and 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.
For Mains: 1. What are the two systems of the appointment of Judges that has triggered the fresh debate on the Judicial system in India? (250 Words).
|
|
Previous year Question
1. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (UPSC 2021)
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A
2. In India, Judicial Review implies (UPSC 2017)
A. the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders
B. the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures
C. the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President
D. the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgments given earlier in similar or different cases
Answer: A
3. Consider the following statements:
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehavior' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, of 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2
B. 3 only
C. 3 and 4 only
D. 1, 3 and 4
Answer: C
|
Source: The Hindu
