Balancing Judicial Independence with Accountability

Proposals made in the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill in 2010 must be revived to do away with the present dichotomy in dealing with civil servants and judges as civil servants, writes Prof. SN Mishra

- 

THE Supreme Court has successfully asserted its right to review the constitutionality and legality of legislative and executive decisions in the Keshavanand Bharati Case (1973), stung by Indira’s dictum for a committed judiciary and supersession of Justices Shelat, Grover and and Hegde in 1973.

The Minerva Mills Case judgement in 1980, put the final nail in Parliament's vaulted desire to be unassailable. Fortunately, the parties in power since then have reluctantly demurred to the Supreme Court's power for judicial review. However, the Supreme Court's slam down of NJAC Act in the matter of selection of judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court and persisting with an opaque collegium system has put a huge question mark over the accountability, objectivity, and lack of bias of judges. This has been further compounded in alleged burning of high value cash in the store room of Justice Varma after a fire call on 14th March, where the judges have tied themselves in knots by not allowing CBI to register a case and coming with a report, where an element of bias cannot be ruled out.

Reviewing the Veeraswami Judgement