Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2012

Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2012

The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill has been cleared by Loksabha. It would be tabled in Rajyasabha in budget session. It makes it imperative for us to study this bill in detail.  This bill tries to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges. It also requires judges to declare details of their and their family members' assets and liabilities.  Importantly, it creates mechanisms to allow any person to complain against judges on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity was introduced in the Lok Sabha last year with amendments.

History of Bill

The first judicial accountability bill was tabled at Cabinet meeting in 2010 when it was known as “The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010. The Bill provided for:

1.      A mechanism for enquiring into complaints against the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts

2.      Laying down judicial standards

3.      Declaration of the assets and liabilities of  the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts

Implications of Bill

The Bill seeks to replace the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 while retaining its basic features. 
The enactment of the Bill will address the growing concerns regarding the need to ensure greater accountability of the higher judiciary by bringing in more transparency and would further strengthen the credibility and independence of the judiciary.

Revised Bill

Fresh amendments include:

• Restraining judges from making "unwarranted comments" against conduct of any Constitutional authority.
• According to the revised bill, in case any judge who makes oral comments against other constitutional authorities and individuals, would render himself/ herself liable for "judicial misconduct."
• The Bill seeks to set up a mechanism to enquire into complaints against judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. It was aimed at striking a “balance” between maximising judicial independence and laying down accountability at the same time for members of the higher judiciary. At present there is no legal provision for dealing with complaints filed by the public against the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

 A National Level Oversight Committee which shall be a five member committee headed by a retired Chief Justice of India has been provided by the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. The revised bill contains 8 chapters and 59 clauses. The chapters included in this bill are:

1. Introduction-Preliminary
2.  Judicial standards to be followed by judges.
3.  Declaration of assets and liabilities by judges.
4. Declaration of assets and liabilities by judges
5. Scrutiny panel.
6. Oversight committee and Investigative committee their staffing and other clauses
7. Procedure for presentation of an address for removal of a judge.
8. Offences and penalties.

Highlights of the Bill are:  The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 requires judges to declare their assets, lays down judicial standards, and establishes processes for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Judges will be required to declare their assets and liabilities, and also that of their spouse and children. The Bill establishes the National Judicial Oversight Committee, the Complaints Scrutiny Panel and an investigation committee.  Any person can make a complaint against a judge to the Oversight Committee on grounds of ‘misbehaviour’. A motion for removal of a judge on grounds of misbehaviour can also be moved in Parliament.  Such a motion will be referred for further inquiry to the Oversight Committee. Complaints and inquiries against judges will be confidential and frivolous complaints will be penalised. The Oversight Committee may issue advisories or warnings to judges, and also recommend their removal to the President. Controversies Surrounding the Bill The main opposition to this bill is that it may encroach upon the right of courts to comprehend the constitution because of the so-called gag clause, which prevents judges from making “unwarranted” oral observations against constitutional authorities, and has raised judicial hackles. Questions have been raised about the propriety, indeed constitutionality, of having non-judicial members in the Oversight Committee, which deals with complaints about judges. Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of Scrutiny Panels, which vet and filter out frivolous complaints, peopled by members of the same court as the one complained about.