Corruption is a serious problem that undermines the rule of law, democracy and human rights.

It
erodes public trust in institutions and hampers social and economic development. Corruption in the
higher judiciary, which is entrusted with the responsibility of upholding justice and safeguarding
constitutional values, is especially detrimental to the functioning of a democratic society.

Combating corruption in the higher judiciary requires a multi-pronged approach that involves legal,
institutional and social measures. Some of the possible steps that can be taken to prevent and curb
corruption in the higher judiciary are:

- Strengthening the mechanisms of appointment, accountability and transparency of judges. This can
include establishing clear and objective criteria for selection and promotion of judges, ensuring
judicial independence from political interference and undue influence, creating effective disciplinary
and complaint mechanisms against judicial misconduct, and enhancing public access to information
on judicial proceedings and decisions.

- Promoting a culture of integrity and ethics within the judiciary. This can include developing and
enforcing codes of conduct and ethical standards for judges and judicial staff, providing regular
training and education on anti-corruption laws and principles, fostering a sense of professional
responsibility and public service among judges, and encouraging peer review and self-regulation
within the judicial community.

- Enhancing the oversight and monitoring of judicial performance and corruption risks. This can
include establishing independent and impartial bodies to assess and evaluate the quality and
efficiency of judicial services, conducting regular audits and inspections of judicial institutions and
processes, developing indicators and benchmarks to measure judicial integrity and effectiveness, and
encouraging civil society participation and public scrutiny of judicial affairs.

- Improving the coordination and cooperation among different stakeholders involved in the fight
against corruption. This can include fostering dialogue and collaboration between the judiciary, the
executive, the legislature, the media, the civil society, the private sector and the international
community, sharing best practices and experiences on anti-corruption initiatives, supporting mutual
legal assistance and extradition agreements, and participating in regional and global anti-corruption
networks and forums.

References:

- Transparency International. (2019). Global Corruption Barometer: Asia 2019.

https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/2019_GCB_Asia_Report.pdf
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial
Integrity and Capacity. https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2020/20-
00326_Resource_Guide_on_Strengthening_Judicial_Integrity_and_Capacity_ebook.pdf

- Venkatesan, J. (2012). Corruption in Higher Judiciary: Causes And Cures. Economic & Political
Weekly, 47(8), 13-16. https://www.epw.in/journal/2012/08/commentary/corruption-higher-
judiciary.html

Corruption in the higher judiciary is a serious threat to the rule of law and democracy in India. It
undermines public trust and confidence in the judicial system, and erodes the integrity and
independence of judges. Corruption in the higher judiciary can take various forms, such as bribery,
nepotism, favouritism, extortion, influence-peddling, and judicial activism.

Combating corruption in the higher judiciary requires a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach
that addresses both the causes and the consequences of corruption. Some of the measures that can
be adopted to prevent and deter corruption in the higher judiciary are:

- Establishing a transparent and merit-based system of appointment and promotion of judges, with
adequate representation from different sections of society and effective participation of civil society
and bar associations.

- Strengthening the accountability and oversight mechanisms for judges, such as the code of conduct,
the declaration of assets and liabilities, the in-house procedure, and the removal procedure. These
mechanisms should be clearly defined, widely publicized, and strictly enforced, with due regard to
the judicial independence and dignity.

- Enhancing the capacity and competence of judges, through regular training, education, and
evaluation programs, that foster ethical values, professional standards, and judicial skills.

- Improving the working conditions and remuneration of judges, to ensure their financial security and
reduce their vulnerability to corruption.

- Promoting a culture of integrity and transparency within the judiciary, by encouraging judicial
ethics, collegiality, self-regulation, and public scrutiny.
Some of the legal remedies that can be sought by the aggrieved parties or public interest litigants to
challenge corruption in the higher judiciary are:

- Filing a complaint with the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned,
under the in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999. This procedure provides for
an inquiry by a committee of three judges into allegations of misconduct or incapacity against a judge
of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The committee can recommend suitable action to be taken by
the Chief Justice or advise him to initiate removal proceedings against the judge.

- Filing a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial
review of any act or omission by a judge that violates the fundamental rights or any other
constitutional provision. The writ petition can also seek appropriate relief, such as quashing the
impugned order or judgment, issuing directions or guidelines to prevent corruption in future cases,
or initiating contempt proceedings against the judge.

- Filing an impeachment motion before Parliament under Article 124(4) or Article 217(1)(b) of the
Constitution of India, seeking removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court on grounds of
proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The impeachment motion requires the signatures of at least 100
members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha to be admitted. The motion is then referred to
a committee of three members (one Supreme Court judge, one Chief Justice of a High Court, and one
eminent jurist) for investigation. The committee submits its report to Parliament, which then votes
on the motion by a majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting in each House.

Some of the landmark cases that have dealt with corruption in the higher judiciary are:

- In re: Special Reference No.1 Of 1992 [(1992) 1 SCC 119], where a presidential reference was made
under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on whether
allegations of corruption against certain High Court judges could be investigated by agencies outside
the judiciary. The Supreme Court held that such investigations could be conducted only with its prior
permission and under its supervision.

- C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee [(1995) 5 SCC 457], where a writ petition was
filed under Article 32 challenging the appointment of Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee as Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court on grounds of alleged corruption. The Supreme Court quashed his appointment
and laid down guidelines for appointment and transfer of judges.

- K.Veeraswami v. Union Of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655], where a criminal case was registered against
Justice K.Veeraswami, former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, for possessing assets
disproportionate to his known sources