SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

Reaccredited by NAAC with an ‘A’ Grade

LLM 2023-24
RESEARCH PAPER

TOPIC: JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA AND

USA: PERCEPTIONS vs. PRACTICES

SUBJECT: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW

Submitted by: -

Adesh Thakur Suruchi Kanoongo

PRN: 23010143051 PRN: 23010143052

 CONTENTS

Abstract 3

Keywords: 3

1. Introduction 4

1.1 Research Problem 5

1.2 Literature Review 5

1.3 Research Questions 9

1.4 Research Objectives 9

1.5 Research Methodology 9

1.6 Scope and Limitations 10

2. Judicial Accountability: Perception and Practices 11

2.1 Challenges faced by citizens in Holding Judges Accountable along with Case
Studies 12

3. Role of Politics in Decision Making and its effect on Judicial Accountability 14

4. Ensuring Transparency And Fairness In Upholding Public Confidence 15

5. Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Judicial Accountability 15

6. Results 17

6.1 Suggestions 17

6.2 Conclusion 18

References 20

2
 JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA AND USA: PERCEPTIONS
vs. PRACTICES

Abstract
Accountability of the judiciary is a prominent factor in any democracy. This research takes an
in-depth understanding of the web of judicial accountability. Judicial accountability is the
cornerstone of Rule of Law and public trust within the legal system. This research undertakes
a comparative analysis of two distinct nations and their interplay between judicial
accountability, public trust, and transparency. Both the nations, India and the United States
provide a dynamic framework for underpinning a just and accountable judiciary. The heart of
this research lies in devising means through which public confidence can be maintained while
holding the judiciary accountable. The paper encompasses an extensive analysis of existing
practices and their impact on the adjudication of constitutional matters. Further, this study
also examines the influence of political factors in decision-making processes within the
judiciary. Furthermore, the paper underscores the Parliament’s power in maintaining
accountability of judicial systems by highlighting the concept of separation of powers. In
short, this study aims to contribute to a global discourse on judicial accountability in these
two prominent democracies. By comparing these two nations, this study provides suggestions
and recommendations for enhancing judicial accountability and strengthening public trust in
the judiciary.

Keywords: Accountability, Trust, Judiciary, USA, Power

3
1. Introduction

“Justice should not only be done but should undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 1 Lord Hewart
highlights this core issue that the fundamental principle underlying the Judiciary is that the
judicial accountability mechanism not only exists on paper but is demonstrated effectively.
Judicial accountability is the cornerstone of the Rule of Law in the legal system. It acts as a
bridge connecting the ideals enshrined in legal texts with the live experiences of citizens
engaged in the judicial machinery. It ensures that the Judiciary as one of the three pillars of
the government remains transparent and accountable to its citizens.
The United States, possessing its federal system and deeply rooted in the common law
tradition, has intricate issues regarding the transparency and accountability of its judiciary.
On the other side, India, with its rich constitutional history and legal framework rooted in the
principles of justice and equity demarcates that judicial accountability mechanisms are not
mere words on paper but effectively demonstrated in practice. However, this interplay
between the perception and practice of both countries explores how the public perceives the
accountability of judges and how this perception impacts the adjudication of constitutional
matters. In terms of practical measures, the U.S. employs a robust system of judicial review
which encourages consistency and accountability in the application of law.

The public perception in the U.S. is generally positive because of the belief that the judiciary
operates independently and fairly. While in India, the perception of judicial accountability is
influenced by a long-standing tradition of independence. The constitution of India establishes
a separation of powers and provides for a collegium system that involves the judiciary itself.
It seems to have a mixed perception.
Further, the influence of politics on the judiciary in India is a debatable topic. At times, the
judiciary has taken on a more activist role stepping into filling governance gaps. In both
nations, the concept of judicial accountability remains an evolving one, and is shaped by
historical, constitutional, and political factors.

1
R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy 256, 259 (1924).

4
1.1 Research Problem

The central problem of this research is to check the effectiveness of judicial accountability
mechanisms in India and the USA and their impact on maintaining public trust within the
judiciary. This research acknowledges the fact that accountability is a major factor in
functioning of judiciary in any democratic society as it ensures the core concept of rule of
law. However, the nature of devising mechanisms on judicial behavior and public perception
remains a complex issue. Furthermore, this study confronts the issue of political influence
posing threat to the integrity of the legal system. The focus is on trying to solve as to making
sure that judges in India and the USA are trustworthy in their decisions and the public trust
them.

1.2 Literature Review

Charles Gardner Geyh in his book “Judicial Accountability and Independence in the United
States"2 provides a comprehensive overview of judicial accountability issues in the United
States. It covers various aspects of judicial conduct, ethics, and oversight mechanisms along
with the lacunas that the US had. While it provides a thorough analysis, it may not be up-to-
date on recent developments in the field.

Russell M. Gold in his article "The Limits of Judicial Accountability” 3 critically examines the
concept of judicial accountability in the system and the challenges in implementing effective
accountability mechanisms. It only focuses primarily on the challenges and may not delve
deeply into potential solutions.

Cynthia Gray4 in his article tells what is the requirement to be a good judge he also explains
the principle of courtesy. Comment 1 to Rule 2.8 of the American Bar Association Model
Code of Judicial Conduct notes that, “the duty to hear all proceedings with patience and
courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty . . . to dispose promptly of the business of the
court” and that

2
Volume 137 CHARLES GEYH, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN UNITED
STATES 211-220 (Fall 2008)
3
Russel M. Gold, The Limits of Judicial Accountability, Journal 4 UNSW LAW 10(1) (1987)
4
Cynthia Gray, Judicial Courtesy and Respect for People’s Time, Volume 100 No. 1 BOLCH JUDICIAL
INSTITUTE & DUKE LAW SCHOOL (2016)

5
“Judges can be efficient and business-like while being patient and deliberate.” Another article,
i.e., "Judicial Ethics and Accountability: An Overview" provides a concise introduction to the
topic of judicial ethics and accountability in the U.S. It covers the historical context and key
principles. It offers a good foundation but may lack in-depth analysis.

Ben F. Overton5 in his article discusses the circumstances that might constitute grounds for
judicial disciplinary commission action that requires an understanding of the purpose of such
commissions. These commissions were established to improve the administration of justice
and protect public.

“Judicial Ethics and Accountability: An Examination of Current Issues” Edited by Charles

Gardner Geyh6 an d originally written by Maurer Faculty. This edited volume brings together
various perspectives on judicial ethics and accountability, offering a comprehensive
overview. The perspectives may vary, but they might lack a singular focus. Another edited
article “Rescuing Judicial Accountability from the Realm of Political Rhetoric” 7 shows how
political leaders hamper judicial decisions and how it leads to unethical judgement.

Everaldo Lamprea8 in his article explained the power to nominate members of the court was
given to the president along with the supreme court and administrative court. This article
presents how NGOs demand more accountability in the nomination process this case study
explores various dimensions of judicial accountability in practice. But the author has given
only one aspect and it not be comprehensive and is not in detail.

"Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability 9: A Comparative Study" which was

edited by Peter E. Quint provides a volume that offers a comparative perspective on
balancing judicial independence and accountability in different legal systems along with also
states that

5
Ben F. Overton, Grounds for Judicial Discipline in the Context of Judicial Disciplinary Commissions,
54 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 59 (1977).
6
Charles Gardner Geyh, Judicial Ethics and Accountability, Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2023)
7
Charles G. Geyh, Rescuing Judicial Accountability from the Realm of Political Rhetoric, (2006). Articles
by Maurer Faculty. 303. (2006)
8
Everaldo Lamprea, When Accountability Meets Judicial Independence: A Case Study of the Colombian
Constitutional Court's Nominations, Volume 10, GLOBAL JURIST (2010)
9
David Pimentel, Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability, 33 PACIFIC BASIN. L.J. 155 (2016)

6
the judiciary is accountable to whom, the establishment of the special disciplinary body
within the judiciary. It may lack a specific focus on the U.S. context.

Arghya Sengupta in her paper discusses about the relationship between judicial independence
and accountability in India which emphasizes the need for harmonious balance between
Judiciary and public. However, there is lack of comprehensive comparative studies between
judicial accountability in India and other countries, which could offer the valuable insights
and the best practices which India can adopt from them. In this literature, more current
assessment is required.10

This literature states the concept of Judicial Accountability in India, providing insights into
the role of Judiciary and ensuring there should be accountability for the better enforcement of
Justice. However, this work could benefit from a more exploration through case studies
which highlights practical challenges in implementing the accountability measures. Along
with this, real-life examples can also enrich the analysis.11

The existing literature identifies the significant challenges that were faced by the Judiciary in
achieving accountability in India. Including the issues of delays in the disciplinary process,
the author also observes that while the court seeks to be a people’s court that provides access
to the disadvantaged groups, its policies on admitting the case limit the access to justice for
the same groups. While the court plays a crucial role in enforcing the state’s constitutional
accountability, the case load of constitutional matters has been crowded by routine appeals.
However, the author in his book discusses the challenges faced by Judiciary, but it does not
give potential solutions through which the accountability can be achieved.12

This existing article provides a comparative analysis of judicial independence and

accountability from regulatory perspective in India and United States. This article states that
Judicial independence and accountability has “three” essentials: individual,

10
ARGHYA SENGUPTA, INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE INDIAN HIGHER
JUDICIARY, 119-139, CAMBRIDGE UNI PRESS (2019).
11
Pavan Malik, Judicial Accountability in India: A critical analysis, 2 ISSUE 1, IJLLR, 21, 24-26 (2021).
12
APARNA CHANDRA, SITAL KALANTRY, WILLIAM H. J. HUBBARD, COURT ON TRIAL: A DATA-
DRIVEN ACCOUNT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Penguin Random House India (2023)

7
internal, and institutional. However, the room for a more in-depth exploration of the cultural
and the societal factors that influence the differences in accountability mechanisms between
these two countries.13

Judiciary on Trial by B.R. SHARMA14 explicitly talks about judging the judge as
challenging. It talks about the role of authorities in exercising control over the judges. It also
suggested some mechanisms to answer the problem of judging the judge. However, the tools
stated in the book have yet to precisely give a complete answer to the accountability of
judges. So, this research focuses on achieving judicial accountability by adopting measures
keeping in mind the independence of the Judiciary.

NICHOLAS BAMFORTH & PETER LAYLAND15 , in Accountability in the Contemporary

Constitution, analyses the concept of accountability in constitutional law and administrative
law is complex thing. So, this book says about the legal framework of public institution,
considering recent accountability debate and the role of human right in accountability.
However, in many countries like USA it has done the particular resonance in recent
circumstances with the decreasing power of social differences and expanding the reach of
peoples accountability mechanism and increasing the participation of people with the
evolving contemporary societies, the need for accountability in constitutions is highly
required.

In his book, Mark Tushnet16 offers an overview about the Constitution of the United States.
It provides a precise analysis of the critical principles of the Constitution. It states the concept
of Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy. However, it lacks in explaining the clear idea
about the accountability of the Judiciary through various contemporary judgments and further
to provide measures to ensure the public trust in the Judiciary. This research will provide
valuable insight into the Judicial system of the USA and the accountability process while
fulfilling the need to add recent judgments.

13
Shivraj S. Huchhanvar, Conceptualizing Judicial Independence and Accountability from regulatory perspective,
9 Issue 2, OLR, 110, 137-143 (2023).
14
B.R. SHARMA, JUDICIARY ON TRIAL, 82-103 (State Mutual Book & Periodical Services 1988)”
15
NICHOLAS BAMFORTH & PETER LAYLAND, ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONTEMPORARY
CONSTITUTION, Chapter 1, (EBSCO Publishing)
16
Mark Tushnet, The Possibilities of Comparative Consitutional Law, YLJ, 108, 1225, 1230-1238 (1999)

8
1.3 Research Questions

Q1. How does transparency in judicial processes impact public perception of fairness and
trust in the legal system?
Q2. How does political influence affect Judicial decision-making?
Q3. What is the role of Parliament in shaping the Judiciary and challenges faced by citizens
while holding judges accountable?

1.4 Research Objectives

With an extensive literature review, this paper tries to resolve the accountability issues and
uphold public trust within the Judicial Systems. Here are the key objectives the research wants to
achieve:

 To assess the relationship between transparency in judicial processes and public

perceptions of fairness and trust in the legal system.
The objective is to understand how the public perceives fairness in the legal system and to
which extent they trust it.
 To examine the role of political influence in judicial decision-making.
This objective aims to determine whether political influence has an impact on the
integrity of the judicial system.
 To investigate the role of Parliament in shaping the Judiciary and further identify challenges
faced by citizens while holding Judges accountable.
This investigation will shed light on the difficulties citizens may face while attempting to
hold judges accountable for their actions.

1.5 Research Methodology

This paper follows the doctrinal method, armchair research by utilizing primary and secondary
sources to provide a broader understanding of the topic.
Here is a brief overview of the proposed method for this research.

DOCTRINAL METHOD

A. PRIMARY SOURCES FOR DATA COLLECTION

9
  Statues and Codes: This will include written laws enacted by the legislature in the
United States as well as in India.
 Case Laws: This includes decisions made by courts. Major rulings regarding
accountability in USA and India.
 Case Reports: Thorough scrutiny of case reports relating to the accountability issues
in the United States as well as India.

B. SECONDARY SOURCES FOR DATA COLLECTION

 Standard Reference Books: Analysis of legal reference books that offer deeper
insights into the topic.
 Academic Papers/ Articles: Review of academic papers published across various
journals.
 Legal Periodicals: Examining legal periodicals and journals featuring scholarly
articles and issues about judge’s accountability towards the citizens.
 Online databases: Systematic analysis of legal databases to identify and access
relevant legal literature, ensuring correct information.

1.6 Scope and Limitations

Scope
This research primarily focuses on evaluating the mechanisms to ensure accountability of the
Judiciary and includes the role played by politics in judicial decision-making. Further, the
scope encompasses the understanding between transparency in the judicial process and
upholding public perception of fairness within the judiciary. The scope therefore is a
comprehensive one by examining certain elements in the legal system of both the countries to
provide a comparative understanding of the judicial accountability in democratic societies.

Limitations
The study has undergone certain limitations. Firstly, due to time constraints, the challenge
faced is data collection and access to in-depth confidential information particularly in the
context of political influence. Moreover, the study relies on available literature and data up to
a limited point and further developments occurred in the area of issues regarding
accountability may not be included. Lastly, this comparative approach may not fully
consider all the cultural and

10
regional differences in USA and India which may impact the functioning of accountability
within the judiciary. However, the study has taken into consideration factors like
transparency among the public and the role played by politics in influencing judicial decision
making thereby hindering the accountability in place.

2. Judicial Accountability: Perception and Practices

The thirst of this research lies in finding the actual practices underlying the accountability of
the judiciary towards the public. Accountability in its general sense can be understood as
making someone responsible for his or her decision. In the Judicial sense, it is necessary, that
to achieve the ultimate goal of fairness and transparency, judicial accountability is important.
This intricate relationship between the way the public perceives accountability and the actual
mechanisms in place to hold judges accountable for their decisions. By understanding both
perceptions and the practical approach, this paper uncovers the gaps between public trust in
the legal system and the effectiveness of existing accountability mechanisms. Judicial
accountability remains the critical aspect of a democratic system which ensures and upholds
the rule of law and remains responsive to the public. India’s judiciary operates within a
combination of independence with accountability. The Constitution does grant judges
substantial autonomy; however, the accountability mechanism is there to ensure that their
conduct aligns with constitutional values.
Perception of the public holds a significant influence over constitutional adjudication which
shapes the application of law within a democratic society. This relationship between public
opinion and the role of the judiciary in upholding the principles of the Constitution have far-
reaching implications within the legal and political spheres. Trust in the judiciary is vital for
safeguarding individual rights. The public trust is not static; however, it evolves with time
and can be shaped by various elements.
Assessment of public perception plays a crucial role in shaping constitutional adjudication. It
serves as a parameter of the judiciary’s standing in a democratic society which reflects how
the public views the institution responsible for safeguarding their rights.
When the public perceives that the judiciary is transparent and possesses mechanisms for
accountability, their trust is bolstered. Delays and backlogs can undermine public faith.
Mechanisms for holding judges accountable for misconduct are another vital aspect that
contributes to positive public perception.

11
 2.1 Challenges faced by citizens in Holding Judges Accountable along with Case Studies

Citizens both in India and in the United States face significant hurdles while holding judges
accountable for their actions and decisions. The lifetime appointment of federal judges, along
with impeachment process makes it difficult to remove judges in controversial decisions in
USA. The massive backlog of cases in Indian judiciary delays the resolution of complaint
against judges. As both of the countries prioritize the concept of judicial independence which
is fundamental for upholding the rule of law, this very independence can also present some
challenges when it comes to ensuring accountability.

A. UNITED STATES

Judicial Independence
The judges in USA are significantly independent which is very crucial for Rule of Law.
However, this creates the challenging situation for the citizens to hold the judges
accountable for the citizens, as decision given by them are often considered final.
In the case of 2000 U.S. Presidential Election (Bush vs. Gore), the decision of the
Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount was highly controversial. Some citizens felt
that the decision given was influenced by political considerations, but there were limited
avenues for holding the judiciary accountable for this decision.17

Lack of Transparency
At the federal level, judicial proceedings often lack transparency. The decision of the
court and deliberations were not recorded at federal which makes it difficult for the public
to evaluate the action of the judges.
US Supreme Court’s lack of transparency was highlighted in the case, “Obergefell vs.
Hodges” which legalized the same sex marriage. Citizens had no access to details about
the judgement and the thought process of the judge, thereby lacking transparency in the
Judicial System of the Country.18

Judicial Ethics Oversight

17
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
18
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)

12
 The system of enforcing discipline among the federal judges in United States is relatively
complex and secretive process. This complexity creates difficulties for citizens to
establish accountability when the judges are involved in ethical misconduct.
Judge Mark E. Fuller, who presided over one of the controversial domestic violence case
was only blamed publicly after an extensive legal process which arose the questions
about accountability within the Judicial system of USA.19

B. INDIA

Delays in Legal System

As the well-known saying goes, “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. Indian Judiciary is
known for its backlog of cases, which leads to significant delay in the delivery of
justice. This can hinder the citizens ability to hold the judges accountable.
One of the very landmark judgements of Bhopal Gas tragedy case20, to deliver the
verdict it nearly took over 25 years leading to public frustration and the question about
accountability.

Complex legal Procedure

Legal procedures in India are very complex and time consuming which makes it
challenging for the citizens to navigate the system, when they believe a judge has made
an erroneous decision.
In one of the very high-profile cases of 2g spectrum 21, some of the accused claimed that
they were falsely implicated due to biasness of Judges. However, the time-consuming
and complex trial process made it difficult to address these concerns quickly.

Limited mechanisms for Judicial accountability

19
Timothy M. Phelps, U.S. Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama may face ouster after domestic abuse claim, LOS
ANGELES TIMES (Oct. 29, 2023, 5:34 PM), https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-judge-impeach-fight-
20150315-story.html.
20
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc, 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540.
21
Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1688 of 2012 etc.) (2012)

13
 To address the Judicial misconduct in India, there are mechanisms but they are often
considered ineffective and not operating properly, there is limited transparency in the
disciplinary process of the Judges.
The 2014 case of former Calcutta High Court Judge, C.S.Karnan, who made allegations
against the fellow judge who later sentenced to jail for contempt, highlighted the
challenges the in dealing with judicial misconduct.22

3. Role of Politics in Decision Making and its effect on Judicial

Accountability

Politics play a significant role in the decision-making in various aspects of governance and
policy. It influences decision making by shaping preferences, policymakers, and government
institutions. Political Pressures can have significant influence over impartiality and
effectiveness of judicial accountability and hampers the justice delivery system.

A. UNITED STATES
In United States, the appointment of Supreme Court and federal judges, the political process
is highly involved. The president nominates Judges, and the Senate gives confirmation, which
makes the Judicial appointment process inherently political. This influence of the political
aspect can hamper the accountability of Judges specially when the actions or decision of
these judges aligns with preferences of the appointing authority or their political party.
For example, during impeachment proceeding of the federal judges, political party can play a
role in decision making process which potentially affects the outcome.
The impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings is a good example of political influence over
accountability of judges. Hastings was impeached by the House of Representatives and
removed by the Senate. But the impeachment process was highly influenced by political
considerations, as he had been acquitted in a criminal trial related to bribery charges earlier.23

B. INDIA

22
Khadija Khan, Amid Justice Gangopadhyay row, recalling retd HC judge Karnan’s battle with SC, THE
INDIAN EXPRESS E-PAPER, (Oct. 29, 2023, 6:14 PM),
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained- law/amid-justice-gangopadhyay-row-recalling-retd-hc-
judge-karnans-battle-with-sc- 8585832/#:~:text=In%20January%202014%2C%20he%20created,had%20said
%20in%20his%20complaint 23Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992)

14
In India, politics has significant influence on appointment, transfer and promotion of judges
which can indirectly affect their accountability. Political pressure and interference of politics
can compromise the impartiality of Judges particularly when these judges are deciding the
case which are politically sensitive. The appointment of judges to High Court and Supreme
Court is subject to debate and can be influenced by political considerations which may affect
their accountability.
The very famous, “Master of the Roster” controversy in which Chief Justice Dipak Mishra,
highlighted the role of politics in the allocation of cases in the Supreme Court. Allegations of
favoritism in assigning the cases to particular benches raise the question about judicial
accountability and transparency, as political and external pressure were rumored to play a
role in decision making process.24

4. Ensuring Transparency and Fairness In Upholding Public Confidence

Public trust plays a major role while ensuring transparency within the accountability process
in Judiciary. It is imperative to have such mechanisms that promotes impartiality and upholds
faith in the Judiciary. Transparency can be achieved with access to information and measures
that allow citizens to scrutinize the judges actions. This transparency is essential to ensure a
democratic society.
In United States, transparency is maintained through access to judicial records. The Freedom
of Information Act in the country allows citizens to get access to government documents
about the information about Judiciary. On the other hand, In India transparency is promoted
through the Right to Information Act, which grants citizens right to request information,
thereby allowing transparency. However, the debates regarding transparency of Collegium
system remains a subject of concern. Both USA and India, has taken initiatives for upholding
public confidence in Judicial accountability.

5. Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Judicial accountability

The three pillars of the government are Legislature which enacts the law, Executive who is
responsible to executes the law made by legislature and the Judiciary is the third organ which

24
Mehal Jain and Manu Sebastian, CJI is the Master of Roster: SC Reiterates, Dismisses Shanti Bhushan’s
Petition, LIVE LAW, (Oct. 30, 2023, 7:00 PM), https://www.livelaw.in/cji-is-the-master-of-roster-sc-
dismisses- shanti-bhushans-petition/.

15
interprets the law and serve the justice. The doctrine of separation of powers plays an
important role in making judiciary accountable to the public in a democratic system. This
doctrine is a cornerstone of the democratic governance and makes sure that no single branch
of the government has unchecked power.

In the context of judiciary, the separation of power contributes to judicial accountability in

the following ways.

1. Checks and Balances The doctrine of Separation of powers allows each branch
to keep checks and balances on the actions of others. In
the case of the Judiciary, the decisions and actions of
judges can be subject to scrutiny and accountability by
other branches.
2. Legislative Oversight The legislative branch holds a significant role in ensuring
judicial accountability through its power such as
confirming judicial appointments, conducting oversight
hearings, and controlling the judiciary’s budget.
Similarly, likewise, legislature can exert accountability
pressure on
the Judiciary.
3. Impeachment and In many democratic systems, the legislative branch of the
Removal country can do impeachment proceedings against the
judges for the misconduct. This process serves as an
important mechanism to hold judges accountable for
their
actions.
4. Legislative Reform The legislature can enact laws and regulations that can
set standards for judicial conduct, ethical behaviour and
accountability mechanisms. This can include creating a
code of conduct, disciplinary procedures, etc.

16
6. Results

The research findings highlight the role of accountability of the judiciary in maintaining
public trust and need to ensure fairness in the process. In United States and India, the Judicial
accountability impacts public confidence and can be influenced by the political
considerations. The findings of the research uphold the citizens trust in the judiciary to
administer justice impartially. This research arrives at a result that when judges are
unaccountable or influenced by any external pressures, the public trust in the legal system
gets hampered which potentially leads to crisis of confidence.
The high threshold for impeachment and the dull nature of disciplinary proceedings can limit
the accountability of judges. Political Influence can cast a shadow on judicial accountability.
In both the countries, judges seem to be inherently affected by the political influence. The
case studies have highlighted the flaws within the judicial system and how citizens are denied
the access to transparent judiciary. The incidents in United States and India highlights the
ongoing need to address the challenges related to accountability and preserve the public trust
within the judicial system.

6.1 Suggestions

To improve public trust, to mitigate political influence, and to promote transparency this
research fulfills the objectives as laid down and further suggest some measures in improving
public access within the judiciary and uphold the concept of rule of law.
First of all, the reforms should be brought in the impeachment process of federal judges in
United States. In the accountability mechanisms within the judiciary, there should be less
interference of political influence. The reforms could ensure more transparent process that
instills the public confidence.
To foster transparency across both the countries, the implementation of uniform judicial code
of conduct would be essential. It would lay down ethical standards which are expected from
the judges and further regular reviews would maintain the evolving expectations from the
public.
In India, the creation of clear guidelines and criteria, opening the selection process to public
scrutiny and ensuring that the appointment of judges must be made on merit based rather than
political influence could be the way to ensure accountability.

17
The establishment of independent oversight bodies should be considered in both the nations.
These bodies will be responsible in keeping eye and reviewing judicial conduct. Regular
external audits of judicial accountability can be made for the reinforcement of public trust.
Both the nations should safeguard the judiciary’s insulation from political considerations
while upholding the principles of justice.

6.2 Conclusion

In this comparative analysis between two distinct and diverse nations, this research has
examined the role of judiciary in preserving public trust and challenges associated of
maintaining the same within USA and India. The study has led us through the exploration of
the perception of public, influence by politics, transparency, fairness and the doctrine of
separation of powers. All these insights have emphasized on the vital importance of judicial
accountability in ensuring a vibrant democratic system.
As Thomas Jefferson, who is one of the founding Fathers of the United States stated that,
“The Judiciary of United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working
underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.” This statement serves
as a reminder that Judiciary is the protector of democracy and its role is to maintain the
balance of power and preserve the integrity of legal system.
The consistent emphasis between the co-relation of public trust and judicial accountability
gives a clear idea that when citizens perceive judge as influenced by external pressure, it
breaks their faith in the legal system. The Chief Justice John Roberts from the US Supreme
court remarked that, “the judicial branch is, and must be, very different from the political
branches. Judges are not politicians”. This explains the crucial need of an impartial judiciary
which is free from political influence.
In conclusion, this research has significantly unrevealed the complexities involved within the
judicial accountability in United States and India. It has unearthed the need for reforms
within the judicial system. The insights gathered from this research fulfills the objectives and
contribute to the ongoing discourse of judicial accountability.
“However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called
to work it happen to be a bad lot.”25 This statement depicts the importance of efforts in
refining

25
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, 25th November (1949).

18
and simplifying the accountability process to promote the equitable access to justice for all
citizens.

19
References

R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy 256, 259 (1924).

Volume 137 CHARLES GEYH, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

IN UNITED STATES 211-220 (Fall 2008)

Russel M. Gold, The Limits of Judicial Accountability, Journal 4 UNSW LAW 10(1) (1987)

Cynthia Gray, Judicial Courtesy and Respect for People’s Time, Volume 100 No. 1 BOLCH
JUDICIAL INSTITUTE & DUKE LAW SCHOOL (2016)

Ben F. Overton, Grounds for Judicial Discipline in the Context of Judicial Disciplinary
Commissions, 54 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 59 (1977).

Charles Gardner Geyh, Judicial Ethics and Accountability, Maurer School of Law: Indiana
University (2023)

Charles G. Geyh, Rescuing Judicial Accountability from the Realm of Political Rhetoric,
(2006). Articles
by Maurer Faculty. 303. (2006)

Everaldo Lamprea, When Accountability Meets Judicial Independence: A Case Study of the
Colombian Constitutional Court's Nominations, Volume 10, GLOBAL JURIST (2010)

David Pimentel, Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability, 33 PACIFIC BASIN.

L.J. 155 (2016)

ARGHYA SENGUPTA, INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE INDIAN

HIGHER JUDICIARY, 119-139, CAMBRIDGE UNI PRESS (2019).

Pavan Malik, Judicial Accountability in India: A critical analysis, 2 ISSUE 1, IJLLR, 21, 24-
26 (2021).

20
APARNA CHANDRA, SITAL KALANTRY, WILLIAM H. J. HUBBARD, COURT ON
TRIAL: A DATA-DRIVEN ACCOUNT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Penguin
Random House India (2023)

Shivraj S. Huchhanvar, Conceptualizing Judicial Independence and Accountability from

regulatory perspective, 9 Issue 2, OLR, 110, 137-143 (2023).

B.R. SHARMA, JUDICIARY ON TRIAL, 82-103 (State Mutual Book & Periodical Services
1988)”

NICHOLAS BAMFORTH & PETER LAYLAND, ACCOUNTABILITY IN

CONTEMPORARY CONSTITUTION, Chapter 1, (EBSCO Publishing)

Mark Tushnet, The Possibilities of Comparative Consitutional Law, YLJ, 108, 1225, 1230-
1238 (1999)

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)

Timothy M. Phelps, U.S. Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama may face ouster after domestic
abuse claim, LOS ANGELES TIMES (Oct. 29, 2023, 5:34 PM),
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la- na-judge-impeach-fight-20150315-story.html.

Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc, 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540.

Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1688 of 2012 etc.) (2012)

Khadija Khan, Amid Justice Gangopadhyay row, recalling retd HC judge Karnan’s battle
with SC, THE INDIAN EXPRESS E-PAPER, (Oct. 29, 2023, 6:14 PM),
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/amid-justice-gangopadhyay-row-
recalling-retd-hc-judge-karnans-battle-with-sc- 8585832/#:~:text=In%20January
%202014%2C%20he%20created,had%20said%20in%20his
%20complaint

21
Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992)

Mehal Jain and Manu Sebastian, CJI is the Master of Roster: SC Reiterates, Dismisses Shanti
Bhushan’s Petition, LIVE LAW, (Oct. 30, 2023, 7:00 PM), https://www.livelaw.in/cji-is-the-
master-of-roster-sc-dismisses-shanti-bhushans-petition/.

Jane Doe, Challenges in U.S. Judicial Accountability, CNN, https://www.cnn.com/article1

(Oct. 30, 2023, 7:07 PM)

22