India’s Higher Judiciary Faces Crisis of Accountability and Independence, Warns Prashant Bhushan
New Delhi: Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan delivered a sharp critique of India’s judicial system, warning the higher judiciary faces a crisis of accountability and independence. He spoke on “Judicial Accountability: A Cornerstone of Democracy” at the Jamia Collective Guftugu held at Saiyidain Manzil, Gulmohar Enclave.
Bhushan emphasized the judiciary was created to serve as a constitutional guardian, protecting fundamental rights and restraining executive excesses. The framers ensured judicial independence by denying the executive disciplinary control over judges. Impeachment remains the only removal method. However, this safeguard has produced a system with almost no real accountability.
Impeachment is an extremely complex political process requiring high parliamentary thresholds. No judge has ever been successfully impeached, even when inquiry committees found serious wrongdoing. This creates a perception among judges of virtual immunity, contributing to rising corruption and misconduct in the higher judiciary.
Bhushan pointed to the K. Veeraswami judgment, which requires prior permission from the Chief Justice of India before any criminal investigation against a judge. He cited the Justice Ashwant Verma controversy, where large cash sums were allegedly recovered from his residence with no FIR registered. The system effectively shields judges from criminal scrutiny.
Efforts to introduce institutional accountability, including the proposed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, failed due to conflicts of interest. Internal mechanisms like the in-house procedure and 1997 Code of Conduct for Judges proved ineffective because fellow judges examine complaints.
Bhushan argued the law of contempt of court, particularly “scandalising the court,” has become a tool to silence dissent. Citizens, journalists and lawyers fear criticising judicial decisions. This is evident in cases like Umar Khalid’s prolonged incarceration without trial.
He criticised growing use of sealed covers and in-camera hearings, citing the Rafale deal and Judge Loya case. Information submitted by the government in sealed covers was accepted without being shared with opposing parties.
Bhushan advocated creating an Independent Judicial Accountability or Complaints Commission, autonomous from both judiciary and executive. Such a body should investigate judges, conduct trials and impose penalties without requiring parliamentary impeachment.
On judicial independence, Bhushan said appointing retired judges to government positions creates incentives for judges to align with the executive while in office. This explains why independent judges like Justice Akhil Qureshi faced elevation hurdles and why Muslim judges are increasingly marginalised in higher appointments.
Bhushan warned democracy requires transparency, accountability and fearless justice to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
