Our judges should be judged as well

Remarks from the Supreme Court and senior Congress leaders in the last few days might give the impression that there is an imminent showdown between the government and the judiciary. More accurately, it can be described as the expected push-and-pull on judicial independence and accountability. So, while the SC felt it right to use caged bird analogies when commenting on the autonomy of the CBI, Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh felt this meant belittling our institutions, and new law minister Kapil Sibal has also raised the issue of changing the system of appointment of judges.

A key principle of the Constitution is the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. While that separation is, per se, sacrosanct, there are, and will be, some overlaps — so there can be a constitutionally healthy dialectic on that separation. That is not to be mistaken for a showdown. And, actually, a similar dialogue must be brought to bear on how to balance judicial independence with accountability.

The latter, clearly, needs a serious overhaul. Two key aspects of accountability are making judges responsible for their decisions, including provisions on how to remove them, and the system of appointing them. Kapil Sibal is right when he says the present system is “opaque and non-transparent”. What else can only judges appointing judges be? Peers elevating peers can lead to cronyism. The extant system where high court and SC judges can be removed only via impeachment is so convoluted that it is almost impossible to dismiss a judge. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill seeks to change all that. Passing it, after due deliberation and modification, will help maintain the system of checks and balances envisaged by the Constitution makers.