Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity – Judiciary, Accountability & Governance)

Source: The Hindu / Indian Express 

Context: The Rising Tide of Complaints

In a significant revelation to the Lok Sabha, the Law Minister disclosed that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) received 8,630 complaints against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts between 2016 and 2025.

• The Trend: There has been a sharp rise in grievances, with 2024 alone recording 1,170 complaints—the highest in the decade.
• The Silence: Despite this volume, the government remained silent on the “Action Taken,” highlighting a systemic opacity in how the judiciary polices itself.

The Current Mechanism: “In-House Procedure”

Since the Executive cannot investigate the Judiciary (to protect independence), complaints are handled via the “In-House Procedure” adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999.

• The Process: Complaints sent via CPGRAMS or directly are forwarded to the CJI or the concerned High Court Chief Justice.
• The Flaw: The entire inquiry is confidential. Even if a judge is found guilty of misconduct, the report is rarely made public. There is no statutory law mandating transparency or accountability to the citizen who filed the complaint.

Broader Systemic Challenges

The issue of complaints is just the tip of the iceberg. The Indian Judiciary faces deeper structural problems:

1. The “Uncle Judges” Syndrome: The Law Commission has flagged concerns about nepotism, where relatives of judges practice in the same court, creating conflicts of interest.
2. No Intermediate Penalty: Currently, the Constitution (Article 124) provides only for Impeachment (removal) for “proven misbehavior.” This is a “Brahmastra”—too powerful to use for minor misconduct (like lateness or rudeness). As a result, minor offenses often go unpunished.
3. Pendency Crisis: With over 5 crore cases pending, the lack of accountability for judicial delays violates the citizen’s Right to Speedy Justice (Article 21).

Way Forward: Structural Reforms

• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Revive legislation to create a statutory body (National Judicial Oversight Committee) to investigate complaints transparently, replacing the opaque “In-House” system.
• Permanent Disciplinary Committee: Instead of ad-hoc inquiries by brother judges, a permanent body with external representation (non-judicial members) is needed to ensure unbiased investigations.
• All India Judicial Service (AIJS): To standardize recruitment and ensure meritocracy in the lower judiciary (Article 312).

UPSC Value Box

Why this matters:

• Trust Deficit: An opaque system where 8,000 complaints vanish into a “black box” erodes public faith in the institution meant to uphold justice.
• Separation of Powers: While judicial independence is sacred, it cannot become a shield for Judicial Impunity.

Analytical Insight:

• The Gap: India has a mechanism to punish the corrupt politician (Lokpal) and the corrupt bureaucrat (CVC), but lacks a credible mechanism to punish the errant judge, short of the impossible impeachment.

Summary

The revelation of over 8,000 complaints against judges underscores the urgent need to move beyond the opaque “In-House Procedure.” Judicial Independence must be balanced with Judicial Accountability through a statutory mechanism that allows for “minor measures” (warnings/fines) for misconduct, ensuring that the “Lords” of justice remain servants of the Constitution.

One Line Wrap: Justice must not only be done by judges but must also be seen to be done to judges when they err.

1. “The ‘In-House Procedure’ for handling complaints against judges has been criticized for lacking transparency.” Discuss the need for a statutory mechanism to enforce judicial accountability without compromising independence. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Mention the 1999 In-House Procedure and the recent data (8,630 complaints).
• Body:
  • The Problem: Lack of transparency (Outcomes unknown) and lack of intermediate punishment (Only Impeachment exists).
  • The Need: Restore public trust; address “Uncle Judges” syndrome.
  • The Solution: Propose a National Judicial Oversight Committee (with safeguards for independence) or reviving the Accountability Bill.
• Conclusion: Quote the principle—“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Accountability strengthens, not weakens, the judiciary.