Judicial Accountability

The acquittal of the prime suspect in the Nithari killings has raised questions about judicial accountability and consistency in India. Read here to learn more.

The Nithari killings remain one of the most horrifying criminal episodes in independent India, also for what followed in courtrooms across the country.

Nearly two decades after the crimes came to light, the case has become less a story of serial murder and more an unsettling mirror reflecting deep fractures in judicial consistency, accountability, and institutional responsibility.

At the heart of the controversy lies a troubling question: When the same evidence leads courts to pronounce both death sentences and complete acquittals, who bears responsibility for the error?

Judicial Accountability

Judicial accountability refers to the responsibility of judges and judicial institutions to act transparently, consistently, and in accordance with the Constitution, while remaining answerable for misconduct, incompetence, or grave errors. It is not about undermining judicial independence; rather, it is about ensuring that independence does not turn into insulation from scrutiny.

Don't miss ClearIAS updates: Add ClearIAS as a preferred source on Google Add →

Why Judicial Accountability Matters

The judiciary occupies a unique position in a constitutional democracy. It:

• Interprets the Constitution
• Protects fundamental rights
• Acts as the final arbiter of disputes

Because judicial decisions have irreversible consequences, loss of liberty, property, or even life, public trust in courts depends on fairness, consistency, and reasoned decision-making.

When courts deliver contradictory verdicts or fail to correct institutional errors, accountability becomes essential to preserve legitimacy.

Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence

A common misconception is that accountability threatens independence. In reality:

True independence cannot exist without accountability, because unchecked power, judicial or otherwise, undermines constitutionalism.

Judicial Accountability in India: The Existing Framework

1. Impeachment

• Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed under Articles 124(4) and 217.
• Requires a special majority in Parliament.
• So far, no judge has been successfully impeached, making it largely ineffective as a practical accountability tool.

2. In-House Procedure

• An internal mechanism created by the judiciary to examine allegations of misconduct.
• Lacks statutory backing, transparency, and public disclosure.
• Outcomes are often unknown, reducing public confidence.

3. Contempt of Court

• Used to protect judicial authority.
• Often criticised when invoked against criticism, as it can chill legitimate accountability discourse.

Key Challenges to Judicial Accountability

1. Lack of Transparency

• Collegium decisions on appointments and transfers are opaque.
• Reasons for judicial transfers or supersession are rarely disclosed.

2. Inconsistent Verdicts

• Similar cases producing radically different outcomes weaken predictability and trust.
• High-profile cases (such as Nithari) show how contradictions remain institutionally unaddressed.

3. No Performance Review

• Unlike the executive or legislature, judges face no systematic evaluation of competence, efficiency, or reasoning quality.

4. Weak Disciplinary Mechanisms

• Misconduct short of impeachment often goes unpunished.
• Victims of judicial error have limited remedies.

Judicial Accountability and Constitutional Morality

Judicial accountability flows from:

• Article 14 (equality before law)
• Article 21 (life and personal liberty)
• Rule of law, a basic feature of the Constitution

If executive and legislative actions are reviewable by courts, judicial actions too must be subject to constitutional discipline, through reasoned judgments, self-correction, and institutional transparency.

Global Practices

• UK: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office handles complaints.
• USA: Judicial councils investigate misconduct; impeachment is rare but not the only tool.
• Canada: Independent judicial councils oversee discipline with public reporting.

These systems show that accountability can coexist with independence.

Reforming Judicial Accountability in India

• Statutory Judicial Oversight Body: An independent body with judges, jurists, and civil society members. Empowered to investigate complaints and recommend action.
• Transparent Appointments: Public disclosure of collegium criteria and decisions. Clear eligibility and evaluation standards.
• Reasoned Consistency: Institutional mechanisms to flag contradictory rulings in similar cases. Mandatory reference to larger benches where inconsistencies arise.
• Compensation for Judicial Errors: Framework for restitution in cases of wrongful incarceration or miscarriage of justice.
• Narrowing Contempt Powers: Protect criticism made in good faith to strengthen democratic accountability.

Conclusion

The Nithari killings expose not only investigative failures but also a judicial system uncomfortable with examining its own contradictions. When the same courts that once upheld death sentences later affirm acquittals on identical evidence, the issue is not discretion; it is accountability.

Judicial accountability is not about punishing judges; it is about strengthening justice itself. A judiciary that acknowledges error, embraces transparency, and accepts scrutiny enhances, rather than diminishes, its authority.

In a constitutional democracy, no institution, including the judiciary, can remain above accountability. The challenge for India is to design mechanisms that preserve independence while ensuring responsibility, consistency, and public trust.

Related articles:

• Judicial review vs judicial activism vs judicial overreach
• Accountability