The Rajasthan High Court Episode and Collegium Precedents
- The Trigger: Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three successive letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alleging serious maladministration, bench manipulation ("shifting of cases"), nepotism in Lok Adalat appointments, and retributive threats by the Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.
- Prolonged Ad-hocism: The High Court functioned under an Acting Chief Justice for over 11 months, exposing structural vulnerabilities in judicial leadership and executive-collegium delays.
- Systemic Lapses: The episode highlights persistent deficiencies in judicial accountability and in-house mechanism in India, where complaints backed by verifiable material face institutional inertia.
- Historic Precedents: During the Justice V. Ramaswami inquiry (1990), then CJI Sabyasachi Mukharji advised the judge to take leave and CJI Venkatachaliah withdrew judicial work. Similarly, in the recent cash recovery row involving Justice Yashwant Varma, prompt administrative withdrawal was enforced.
Opaque Selection Mechanism
Unlike the UK Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) or Canada's open application process, the Indian Collegium system lacks objective criteria, structured vetting, and public scrutiny, breeding arbitrary appointments and patronage.
The Investigation Catch-22
Under K. Veeraswami (1991), police cannot register an FIR against a sitting judge without CJI sanction. Yet, police cannot gather clinching evidence without investigating, creating a virtual immunity shield for errant judges.
1. Revive Judicial Standards Bill
Enact a statutory framework with an independent oversight committee to investigate judicial misconduct outside the CJI's unilateral discretion, strengthening judicial accountability and in-house mechanism in India.
2. Transparent Roster Management
Implement objective, algorithmic case allocation to dismantle arbitrary "Master of the Roster" powers and eliminate bench-hunting allegations.
3. Reformed Selection Criteria
Institutionalize an open, merit-based application and vetting mechanism for High Court elevations with published integrity benchmarks.
4. Mandatory Asset Disclosures
Mandate annual public disclosure of movable and immovable assets for all High Court and Supreme Court judges.
Protecting public faith requires institutionalizing rigorous, transparent judicial accountability and in-house mechanism in India without compromising judicial independence.
1. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a motion for the removal of a High Court judge can be admitted in the Lok Sabha with the signature of at least 100 members.
2. The in-house inquiry procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of India in 1999 has statutory backing under Article 124(5) of the Constitution.
3. According to the Supreme Court ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), no criminal investigation can be initiated against a sitting High Court judge without prior permission from the Chief Justice of India.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Correct Answer: B — 1 and 3 only
Statement 2 is incorrect because the 1999 In-House procedure is an internal, non-statutory mechanism devised by the judiciary, not enacted under Article 124(5). Statements 1 (100 members in LS / 50 in RS) and 3 (prior CJI sanction under Veeraswami) are correct.
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by a Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India are laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only B) 3 only C) 2 and 3 only D) 1, 2 and 3
Correct Answer: B — 3 only
The Speaker/Chairman has discretion to admit or refuse the motion (Statement 1 false). The Constitution does NOT define 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' (Statement 2 false). Statement 3 is correct.
UPSC CSE Mains 2022 — GS Paper II (Actual PYQ)
Model Answer Blueprint (15 Marks | 250 Words)
Key Structured Points
- Introduction: Define the tension between judicial independence (basic structure) and accountability, citing recent High Court controversies in judicial accountability and in-house mechanism in India.
- Shortcomings of Existing Mechanisms: Impeachment under Article 124(4) is politically fraught; In-House procedure lacks statutory backing and public disclosure; K. Veeraswami precedent impedes criminal investigation.
- Structural Causes: Opaque Collegium selection, absence of objective elevation criteria, and unconstrained "Master of the Roster" discretionary powers.
- Reforms: Enactment of the Judicial Standards and Accountability law, creating an independent National Judicial Oversight Commission, computerized roster allocation, and mandatory public asset declarations.
