The judicial system of any country is crucial in giving impartial justice to its population. Judges must ensure that justice is rendered impartially. However, because these judgements influence the general public, judges must be held accountable for their decisions. Accountability is a fundamental component of any democratic nation, as it ensures that justice is given equitably to all residents. Although the judiciary is an autonomous body, it must preserve impartiality when considering cases. As a result, striking a balance between independence and accountability becomes critical for the proper operation of the court.

What is Judicial accountability?

Judicial accountability refers to judges taking responsibility for the decisions they make, which is accomplished through transparency in the decision-making process.

• Every public entity or institution, including the judiciary, is accountable to the public for their judgements and functions, but the amount of accountability varies depending on the sort of job performed.
• The judiciary is meant to be an independent body responsible for delivering justice and upholding the Constitution’s integrity, however conflicts within the judiciary have developed, such as disagreements over appointment procedures and the execution of functions and powers.

Need for Judicial Accountability

• Impartial Operation: The impartial operation of the judiciary is necessary to sustain public confidence in the institution. The court must maintain its independence from the executive and legislative departments and base its decisions entirely on the law and evidence provided in a case. The impartial operation of the court is essential for upholding the rule of law and guaranteeing justice for all individuals.
• Judicial answerability: As the protector of the constitution, the judiciary must be answerable to the people it serves. Judicial accountability ensures that the judiciary operates openly and fairly, and that judges can be held accountable for their acts. Without judicial accountability, the public’s faith in the court may decline, which can be detrimental to the democratic system’s functioning.
• Speedy Justice: Speedy justice is a fundamental right established in article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and it is the obligation of the judiciary to ensure that justice is administered expeditiously. Delay in the administration of justice damages the rights of the individual. A just and prompt judicial system is necessary for the smooth functioning of a democracy and the maintenance of effective government.
• Case Backlog:  The absence of judicial accountability has contributed to the backlog of cases in lower courts. In the lack of accountability measures, judges might not feel obligated to work efficiently, resulting in a backlog of cases. This backlog of cases can have a severe influence on the operation of the legal system and on those seeking justice.
• Awareness among citizens: The demands of Indian citizens are changing as the country becomes more educated and aware of their rights and responsibilities. Public participation has increased, and people want greater accountability from public officials and institutions, including the judiciary. The Indian public is interested in understanding how things are regulated in the country, and they are seeking a more transparent and accountable government.
• Limited Transparency: The extent of information the courts are willing to provide under the RTI is limited, and the judiciary is not required by law to make yearly reports or present them to Parliament or the State Legislature. While judicial independence is crucial, it is also necessary to ensure that the court serves the public in a transparent and accountable manner.
• Absence of Review: The Indian Constitution contains no provision for reviewing Supreme Court rulings. This lack of external oversight can lead to the notion that the judiciary possesses unrestrained authority. In the lack of a review process, judicial decisions may be inconsistent, further weakening public faith in the judiciary.
• Deficits in the Appointment Procedure: The appointment process for judges to the higher judiciary lacks openness, and there is little awareness about the significance of judges’ credentials in their ideological adherence to constitutional principles.

Challenges in ensuring judicial accountability

• Impeachment: The current method of impeachment is impractical and has never been successfully used in the history of the Indian judiciary. While it is intended to be used in cases of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, the drawn-out and difficult nature of the process makes it a loophole for corruption to go unchecked.
• Contempt of Court: While some view the court’s use of contempt as a means of protecting itself from criticism, it can also be seen as a way to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. However, due to the many forms’ contempt can take, it can be challenging to define the offence precisely.
• Exemption from the Right to Information (RTI): In a democracy, the public has a right to know what the judiciary is doing, and the RTI can be an essential tool for ensuring accountability. However, the judiciary is exempt from the RTI, which makes it difficult for the public to hold it accountable. The judiciary needs to be more transparent to combat corruption and maintain public trust.
• Article 142: The use of Article 142 has posed significant challenges in enhancing judicial accountability. While this provision is intended to allow the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to secure justice, its indiscriminate use has been criticised for infringing on the principle of separation of powers and for lack of accountability.