Table of Contents

CHAPTER - I.............................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT:..........................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION:.................................................................................................................3

LITERATURE REVIEW:......................................................................................................4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:...................................................................................................5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:..................................................................................................6

CHAPTER - II............................................................................................................................6

IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN INDIA...............................................................................6

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES................................................................8

CHAPTER – III........................................................................................................................10

ANALYSIS:..........................................................................................................................10

CHAPTER - IV........................................................................................................................11

CONCLUSION:...................................................................................................................11

SUGGESTIONS:..................................................................................................................13

REFERENCES:....................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER - I

1
ABSTRACT:
A constitutional remedy for major offenses against the political system is impeachment. It is
the initial stage in a corrective procedure that could result in removal from public office and a
potential ban from holding additional office. The act of leaving someone's integrity or
legitimacy into doubt is known as impeachment. The process of removing someone from a
position from all of the duties and responsibilities required by the job is referred to as
impeachment. The entire process of removing someone from office is referred to as
impeachment. The President, judicial judges, and other constitutional officers are all typically
referred to. In a nation with a federal presidential Constitutional republic government,
impeachment refers to an accusation of wrongdoing made against a public officer.
Impeachment's primary function is to uphold constitutional government; it is not to punish an
individual. It is definitely the need of the hour and required to protect the values of the Indian
Constitution.
This research paper mainly focuses on the process of impeachment of the judges of the
Supreme Court and the High Court. It focuses on the impeachments of judicial individuals in
the past and analyses people's awareness of and attitudes toward the ongoing impeachment
process of the Indian judiciary.

INTRODUCTION:
Indian democracy rests on three pillars: the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive.
According to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, these pillars, which are essential to the
government's operation, are intended to work independently. The judiciary's primary
responsibility is to supervise situations in which the legislature and executive branch go
beyond their bounds. Citizens and their legal representatives in India persistently call for a
fair application of the law that is devoid of prejudice based on things like religion, caste,
gender, or place of birth. Through the rule of law, the law protects fundamental rights and
ensures that everyone has access to social, economic, and political justice. If the Constitution
is thought of as a gift given to the people, then the judiciary might be understood as the
guardian of that gift. The Judiciary is crucial in protecting and implementing our fundamental
rights, even though the Constitution sets forth these rights and obligations. Therefore, it is
crucial to provide the court a certain level of autonomy in order to uphold justice.
There are instances where the rights of citizens may intersect with the necessity for judges to
deliver impartial and just judgments in the course of their responsibilities. In cases where
judges do not fulfill their duties adequately, the Constitution permits Members of Parliament

2
to vote on the issue and initiate an impeachment process.
The tension between the legislature's potential encroachment on the judiciary's domain and
the corrective actions taken by elected representatives is often seen as a breach of the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers. This interference is also assumed detrimental for the
smooth processing and freedom of the judiciary. On the other hand, some argue that such
intervention by the legislature is essential to scrutinize the judiciary when it fails in its duties.
The provisions allowing for the removal of judges also serve the purpose of restoring public
confidence in the Indian legal system and its, operations aligning with the principles of the
Judicial Accountability Doctrine. Consequently, the involvement is sometimes deemed
necessary.
This research paper will delve into the specific topic of judicial impeachment in India,
exploring its pros and cons in comparison to similar legislation in other countries.

LITERATURE REVIEW:
In India, the impeachment of judges is a difficult process. Following the failure of the sole
case that made it all the way to parliament, a number of bar association campaigns to remove
corrupt judges have failed. The current process was established by the Supreme Court in
response to this and other factors. This research is a theoretical excursion into judicial
accountability and the impeachment of obstinate judges. This was in view of Mr. Chaudari.1
It was observed by Roshini Sinha in an article – Removal of Judges from Office, A judge may
be suspended from the respected office through a resolution passed by Parliament based on
"proven misbehavior or incapacity." While the term 'impeachment' is not used in the
Constitution, it is commonly used to refer to the procedures outlined in Articles 124 (for the
suspension of a Apex court judge) and 218 (for the suspension of a High Court judge).
It was also observed in one of the debates that, legislation is Parliament's main duty. But it
also serves a judicial purpose. According to Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, it is the
prerogative of the Parliament to address the matter of a judge's misbehavior or proven
misbehavior. Without a doubt, the removal procedures against a judge of the Indian Apex
Court or a High Court are a serious matter. The Upper House of the Indian legislature
adopted a procedure to Remove a Judge for the First Time Ever. The impeachment trial of
Justice Soumitra Sen in August 2011 was also among the initial to be broadcast live on
television. The Rajya Sabha Leader of the Opposition described the occasion as "both historic
1
Chaudhuri, S. (2006). Impeachment of Judges: A Theoretical Stroke on Judicial Accountability. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.953237

3
and sad."However, Rajya Sabha aimed to guarantee the sacredness of our Constitution and
the establishment of the people's sovereignty through the Parliament by relying on the lawful
constitutional provisions. The integrity of the judiciary could not be compromised by the
misconduct of a single judge. Although the country's reputation would benefit from having an
honest and open higher judiciary, maintaining a disciplined judiciary is necessary to preserve
democracy. The Parliament employs this authority as a punitive or deterrent action in the
rarest of circumstances because the procedure of removing a judge is rather difficult and
drawn out.
In the views of Albert Broderick, the impeachment procedure can be viewed as a microcosm
of our entire system of constitutional representative governance in a MARVELLOUS
fashion, and it cannot under any circumstances be analyzed as a "question of law." Naturally,
the rules are established by legislation. However, the process of making decisions—whether
to impeach a witness or not, condemn a defendant or not—is remarkably interrelated, with
contributions from law, politics, ethics, and perhaps even psychology and statistics as well as
history. When thinking about impeachment, namely the impeachment of a sitting president,
we must free ourselves from the slavery of legal illusion. He also feels that the constitutional
impeachment procedure for the president favors citizen involvement to start it off, especially
where the offense or offenses charged are to lie under the bracket of "other high crimes and
misdemeanors." The House of Representatives would be justified in delaying the start of the
impeachment process until there was sufficient evidence of public concern on a day like this
when the pertinent facts became public property so quickly through a modern
communications medium. In fact, it appears that this took place during the current effort to
impeach President Nixon.2
It was stated by Richard M. Pious that, on crucial matters surrounding the impeachment, the
Constitution is lacking, unclear, or silent. Depending on which party is in the power of the
White House, Democrats and Republicans have divergent constitutional interpretations, each
drawing on the other's earlier legal defenses. The bounds of legislative activity are
determined by what the public supports, not by constitutional law, which is where the
calculations for impeachment in Congress are mostly based. The widely used law of
impeachment includes the principles of the constitutional system because it is in line with the
framers' definition of serious offenses. The strong changes in public opinion are consistent
with the principles of democratic election outcomes and support the inclusion of the
2
Broderick, A. (1974). The Politics of Impeachment. American Bar Association Journal, 60(5), 554–560.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25726736

4
presumption of innocence in the legal system. All of this is wonderful news for American
democracy because it indicates that impeachments are handled in a way that is both
democratically and constitutionally acceptable. In this sense, even though the converse
statement is not always true, what is good for the nation in the wake of impeachment is good
for the president.3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

The research questions that are answered in this specific paper are as follows:

1. What is the role of impeachment in the Indian judiciary?

2. What statutory provisions and legal procedures govern the process of impeachment of
judges?
3. How does the process of impeachment impact the independence of the court and the
foundations of the government's idea of separation of powers?
4. What are the grounds for impeachment of judges?
5. What particular process needs to be followed for impeachment?
6. What challenges, controversies, and criticisms are associated with the impeachment
process for judges?
7. Based on the difficulties encountered and the insights learned from the analysis, are
there any adjustments or improvements that may be suggested to better the
impeachment process?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
The research objectives for this specific paper are as follows:
 Understanding the legal framework
 To draw a historical analysis of the impeachment procedure
 To analyze the grounds for impeachment
 To examine the role of the legislature
 To evaluate the independence of the judiciary
 To understand public perception and media influence
 To assess the challenges and controversies

3
Pious, R. M. (1998). The Constitutional and Popular Law of Presidential Impeachment. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 28(4), 806–815. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27551935

5
  To identify suggestions/ recommendations if any

CHAPTER - II

IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN INDIA

The term "Impeachment" is a combination of an English word "impede" with the French verb
Emperor, which translates as prevent.
Article 124 of the Indian Constitution governs the impeachment procedure in our country.
The Indian Constitution also contains provisions for judges on this topic in Article 217(1)(b))
and Article 218.
Article 124(5) states that the parliament may control the process for looking into and
accumulating evidence of the Apex Court judge's misconduct or incapacity.
A written letter of resignation from the Judge must be given to the President in accordance
with Article 217(1)-(a). (b) In line with Article 124(4), the President may impeach the Judge.
There was no safeguard for the misbehavior or incompetence of High Court justices because
Article 124 only applied to Supreme Court justices.
As a result, Article 218 discusses the applicability of the procedure of impeachment to cover
High Court judges. Article 218 of the law resolves the probable omissions. As the outcome,
the judicial system becomes more consistent because every one of the judges may be held
accountable for their actions.
The process followed is laid down:
1. To send a notification to the speaker, at least 100 Lok Sabha members must sign it.
A notification to the Chairman must be signed by a minimum of 50 Rajya Sabha members.
Before choosing the choice of whether or not to acknowledge the notification, the speaker or
chairman may discuss with other parties and research similar information associated with the
notification.
2. Immediately following the acceptance of the motion, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the
chairperson of the Rajya Sabha would call a meeting of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968's
Inquiry Committee, in accordance with Article 3(2), to launch an inquiry into the accusation.
It will consist of the following people:
 Judge of Indian Apex Court
 a Speaker/Chairperson
 A renowned jurist and the Chief Justice of the High Court
The Speaker and the Chairman of each House will form the Inquiry Committee if such

6
notices are approved by both of the legislative bodies of Parliament. The latter deadline
notice will be disregarded in this situation. There won't be an inquiry committee if equivalent
warnings are issued.
3. The Committee of Inquiry would organise its results or conclusions into an official report
after its inquiry was complete and submit it to the Speaker or Chairperson. The proposal for
the judge's removal must be put to a vote in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha if the
investigation finds the judge's misconduct or incapacity. The motion must be approved by the
following margins in each chamber, in accordance with Article 124(4) of the Constitution: a
resounding majority of the whole membership of the chamber; a maximum of not less than
two-thirds of the members present and voting.
The motion will be presented to the other house if it receives a majority of votes in one
house.
4. In accordance with Article 124(4), the motion is brought to the President, who issues an
order for the judge's impeachment following the motion's approval by a sufficient majority in
both chambers.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES

The term "misbehavior" is not defined under our Constitution or the renowned Inquiry Act.
Furthermore, the question of what amount of misconduct is required to initiate impeachment
proceedings against the alleged judge in order to remove him from his honorable post as a
judge emerges. Furthermore, in addition, Parliament cannot order the dismissal of a judge for
partisan reasons or displeasure with a specific judgment, Parliament's determination as to
what amounts to "proved misbehavior or incapacity" is the ultimate and not subject to judicial
review. As a result, the absence of a clear definition of misbehavior and the required level of
misbehavior undermines the judiciary's independence. The first point, as to what constitutes
misbehavior, was highlighted previously by Justice Veeraswami in the letter he wrote to Lok
Shaba Speaker. "Sir, the committee discovers that I could have purchased silver-plated
maces," he says.
The constitutions of many countries can be examined in order to come at an acceptable
definition of the term misbehavior. In the case of Harcourt vs. Fox, Holt.CJ of the United
States Supreme Court declared that "during the good behavior implies as long as he doth
behave oneself well and the act has to be abstained of high crimes and misdemeanors." As a
result, neither the courts nor the legislature creates a list of the offenses that constitute crimes

7
against good faith.
Justice K. Ramaswamy repeatedly asserted in a Supreme Court that establishes a number of
guidelines for judicial behavior. To avoid the elimination of a judge without any rational
reason, improper behavior and incapacity are utilized as preventative measures. Careful
thinking is required before making decisions on these actions.
Misbehaviour is a general phrase that cannot be narrowly defined. It is a big word.
Additionally, misbehavior could not be definitively defined by the Restatement of Judicial
Life's Values. Simply being terrible or acting in an abstract way is not considered
misbehavior in the eyes of the law.
According to a ruling, "every act or conduct, even mistakes in judgment or carelessness
committed by higher judicial bodies per se, are not equivalent to misconduct." In the
perspective of the law, "wilful abuse of judicial office, wilful misconduct in the office,
corruption, lack of integrity, or another crime involving moral turpitude would amount to
misbehavior" or "improper or unlawful behavior," according to Section 2(j) of the Judges
(Inquiry) Bill, 2006.
On the other hand, incapacity is defined as a momentary or long-term physical or moral
impossibility.
The International Bar Association has established the following guidelines regarding judges'
conduct:
A judge cannot be fired unless they are able to demonstrate that they are clearly unable to
serve as judges due to criminal behavior, extreme or recurrent negligence, or mental or
physical impairment. The objectivity and independence of the judiciary, as well as the dignity
of the office of the judge, must always be upheld by a judge in whatever they do. To protect
their judicial independence and keep their jobs, judges may act in a coordinated manner.
Even these standards leave a vacuum that is highly arbitrary in nature about the definition of
what constitutes judicial misconduct or incapacity.
"At the other end of the spectrum is the contention that impeachment is limited to indictable
criminal offenses."
Another different aspect was expressed by Rep. Gerald Ford, who said,
"What, then, is an impeachable offense?" The required solution is stated as "an impeachable
offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers It to be at a given
point in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other
body finds to be sufficiently grave to require removal of the accused from office." Parliament
might still fire judges for any cause. The stability and certainty that should be attributes of

8
law are diminished by this approach.
In India, one of the grounds for removing judges is incapacity. impairment encompasses both
physical and mental impairment. Sections 5 and 6 of the Investigation state that the inability
has to be determined by a medical examination conducted by a medical board, as the case
may be. The Act further stipulates that if a judge fails or refuses to submit to such
examination, he or she is assumed to be unfit to occupy the office of judge. He is impeached
in exactly the same manner as for impeachment.
Aside from proven misbehavior or incapacity, different countries have other grounds for
removing judges. In Rwanda, for example, it was said that a judge might be impeached not
only for proven misbehavior and incapacity, but also when he is incapable of holding the
office not due to illness, but due to a lack of knowledge.8 This ground of incapacity has been
detected in Russia, wherein the Supreme Court Judge is impeached for failing to perform or
performing improperly in his/her official function in line with the country's federal
Constitutional regulations, or for breaking the law.

CHAPTER – III

ANALYSIS:
In the V Ramaswami case4 from decades ago, discrepancies were identified during a critical
examination of High Court purchases. Despite being found guilty by the Lok Sabha's Inquiry
Committee based on the evidence, he escaped punishment since the motion clearly did not
attract the required support. The party that is in power has opted not to participate in the vote
on the proposal. There are conflicting interests, however.
India's oversight of the judiciary has gotten worse over time.
In K Veeraswami v. Union of India5, the Apex Court declared that any action taken in
Parliament concerning the criminal prosecution of a judge of a High Court or the Supreme
Court must first receive prior written approval from the Chief Justice. The Veeraswami case
is notable from a judicial perspective since it gave the judges a competitive edge.
In the 2011 lawsuit Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee 6, it was
claimed that P.D. Dinakaran, the previous chief justice of the Sikkim High Court, was in
possession of disproportionate assets and had purchased more land in Arakkonam than
permitted by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms. A successful move by the Rajya Sabha's
chairman in December 2009 resulted in the creation of a committee specially for inquiry to
4
Sub-Committee On Judicial Accountability vs Justice V. Ramaswami, 1995 SCC (1) 5, 1994 SCALE (4)634.
5
K Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 SCR (3) 189, 1991 SCC (3) 655.
6
Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee, AIR 2011 SC 3777

9
look into the allegations of corruption and positional abuse that led to his removal.
Justice Soumitra Sen, a judge of the Calcutta High Court, is the subject to the most advanced
impeachment proceedings because she is alleged to have misused public monies. In a dispute
between the Steel Authority of India and the Shipping Corporation of India in 1993 over the
supply of fire bricks, he was accused of misappropriating rupees 33 lakhs. 58 Rajya Sabha
MPs introduced an impeachment motion against him in 2009. The three-member committee
that the chairman appointed claimed that Justice Sen had engaged in "misbehavior" in
violation of Article 124(4) read with proviso (b) to Article 217(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The impeachment was subsequently supported by all members of the Rajya Sabha and was
scheduled for discussion in the Lok Sabha. Justice Sen resigned on September 1, 2011,
eliminating the Lok Sabha's opportunity to examine the motion.
In the case of Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others 7, Gujarat High Court
Justice Pardiwala faced criticism for making 'casteist' sentiments opposing reservation in a
ruling. In response to the Chairman's purportedly "unconstitutional" utterances against
reservations, 58 Rajya Sabha members petitioned for his impeachment. However, after the
Judge removed the divisive language from the ruling, the motion lost traction.
Former Additional District Judge accused Justice SK Gangele of sexual harassment. She had
submitted a letter describing the assault to the Supreme Court's then-chairman, RM Lodha.
After 58 Rajya Sabha MPs started the impeachment process against Justice SK Gangele, the
committee was established for thorough inquiry. The High Court judge's decision to dismiss
the allegations of sexual harassment was supported by the inquiry panel.
In 2016 and 2017, there were two unsuccessful attempts to eliminate Justice CV Nagarjuna
Reddy, a previous justice of the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. Before an
investigation panel could be established, the impeachment resolution brought forth in
response to allegations of casteist behavior was defeated.
In 2018, the then-CJI, Dipak Misra, was the target of an impeachment proposal signed by 71
Rajya Sabha MPs. The motion included five complaints against Misra in its entirety and
claimed that the CJI behaved inappropriately without any rational reason while assigning
cases to his brother judges in his capacity as "master of roster. Chairman and Vice-President
M. Venkaiah Naidu, after conferring with constitutional experts, legal luminaries, and top
Parliament employees, discontinued the proposal because he did not uncover any evidence of
the misconduct of accused judge.

7
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2021 SCC 41) 5, 2021 SCALE (4)634.

10
 CHAPTER - IV

CONCLUSION:
Upon a comprehensive examination of the complicated process for the removal of judges in
India and critical analysis, it becomes evident that there are numerous limitations and
ambiguities within the existing framework. These issues have been discussed and necessitate
clarification and reform.
It is crucial to consider whether to remove a judge from their job before they reach retirement
age, particularly due to its implications for the independence of the judiciary. In any modern
democracy, the judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting and applying the law, resolving
disputes between citizens, and acting as a check on government actions. The removal of a
judge by the executive branch without adequate safeguards could undermine the judiciary's
independence and subject it to executive control.
One primary issue lies in the vague and ambiguous grounds for the removal of judges
outlined in Article 124(4). The terms "proved misbehavior" and "incapacity" lack clear
definitions, making them susceptible to subjective interpretation. To rectify this, the first step
must involve clearly defining the grounds for removal without any room for ambiguity.
The role of Parliament in the functioning of the judiciary is significant, despite the judiciary's
supposed independence. A prominent example of parliamentary influence is the concept of
the "whip." Members of Parliament are mandated to obey party directions under the Tenth
Schedule of the Indian Constitution, and failure to do so results in disqualification. The fear
of disqualification due to the whip system has a profound impact on the impeachment
procedure. A political party with a majority can easily sway decisions, as demonstrated in the
case of Justice V. Ramaswami, where the motion for the removal failed due to the influence
of the Congress party.
Another issue is the behavior of the collegium and judges when facing allegations. In many
cases, judges facing allegations are simply transferred, which is seen as an ineffective
solution. Instead of meaningful consequences like suspension or a proper inquiry, this
approach merely relocates the judge's place of work without addressing the underlying issues.
To address this, transferring judges as a response to allegations should be reconsidered, and a
more rigorous inquiry and strict actions should be taken.
Furthermore, the issue of judges resigning from their positions during ongoing impeachment

11
procedures needs to be addressed. Many judges have resigned just prior to the
commencement of impeachment proceedings or before the motion is passed in Parliament to
evade charges. Laws should be amended to ensure that even if judges resign, the charges
against them remain and are subject to inquiry. Such a provision would reduce the likelihood
of judges resigning to escape the trial.
Considering these limitations, there are potential amendments and solutions to narrow down
the existing loopholes:
1. Clear Definition of Grounds: The grounds for removal should be defined explicitly and
without ambiguity to prevent misuse.
2. Reducing Parliamentary Influence: Given the misuse of parliamentary influence, a
different mechanism for judge removal could be considered. Instead of vesting this authority
solely in Parliament, an independent body like Lokpal could handle impeachment
proceedings. However, Lokpal itself may require reform to eliminate external influence.
3. Independent Oversight Body: An independent body, free from external influence, should
handle the inquiry and decision-making processes related to impeachment. Parliament's role
could be restricted to initiating the procedure.
4. Continued Inquiry After Resignation: Judges' resignations should not absolve them of
alleged charges. An independent body should continue to investigate allegations even after a
judge's resignation, ensuring accountability.
However, despite the desire to maintain the symbolic integrity of the judiciary, the existing
procedures for indictment and impeachment are often seen as cumbersome, impractical, and
unrealistic, if not impossible. The need to address undesirable tendencies within the judicial
system is pressing, but the current removal procedure is considered inadequate for several
reasons.. The impeachment process tends to be marred by political controversies, making it
difficult to hold guilty judges accountable. This ineffectiveness is highlighted by the analysis
presented above.
In summary, the removal of judges before their retirement age is a critical issue for the
independence of the judiciary. While democratic nations have implemented safeguards to
protect judicial independence, the existing procedures for removal are often seen as
impractical and unable to effectively address issues like corruption within the judiciary.
Balancing the need for accountability and maintaining judicial independence remains a
complex challenge in modern democracies.
In conclusion, while these solutions may not be perfect, with appropriate modifications and
effective implementation, they could address the major limitations discussed in previous

12
chapters and contribute to upholding the independence of the judiciary in India.

SUGGESTIONS:
In India, the judiciary plays a pivotal role, and its role in upholding justice is highly regarded
by citizens. To maintain a robust and effective judicial system, it is crucial to create a clear
code of conduct within the profession. While impeaching judges for minor offenses or
abrasive behavior may seem excessive and detrimental to judicial independence, there is a
pressing need for alternative mechanisms to address misconduct.

The current statutory framework for addressing judicial misbehavior, as outlined in the
Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, has proven ineffective in disciplining judges as intended.
Paradoxically, impeachment cases have become increasingly serious over time. Attempts to
introduce Bills in 2006 and 2010 aimed at holding judges accountable without resorting to
impeachment failed to pass in Parliament. This legal vacuum has allowed judicial indiscipline
to thrive.

One solution could be to draw inspiration from the legal systems in Europe and the United
States to amend existing Indian legislation. Strengthening the consequences for even minor
instances of misconduct is essential. Simply transferring judges, as was done with Justice
C.S. Karnan, is not a viable option. His unacceptable behavior persisted, highlighting the
inadequacies in the Indian legal system. Judges, especially those in higher courts, often wield
the "Contempt of Court" power to suppress accusations or criticisms, making them less
susceptible to prosecution.

To address these challenges, a range of measures can be implemented for correcting judicial
misconduct, including reprimands, fines, temporary suspensions from duty, demotions to
lower positions, public apologies, and exclusion from consideration for promotions.
Moreover, legislators should address the issue of judges resigning mid-impeachment
procedure, which results in a waste of resources and time for Parliament.
However, the successful implementation of these measures requires several prerequisites to
be met:
1. Informed and Educated Media: An informed and educated media can play a crucial role in
highlighting judicial misconduct and ensuring that the public is aware of any violations of the

13
code of conduct.
2. Stricter Mechanisms to Fight Corruption: To maintain an honest judiciary, it is essential to
have rigorous mechanisms in place to combat corruption within the judiciary itself.
3. Reforming Legal Education for All: Legal education should emphasize ethical conduct and
adherence to professional standards, instilling a sense of responsibility and accountability in
future judges.
4. Reducing Political Influence: Reducing political influence in various areas, including
education and religion, can help maintain the integrity of the judiciary by preventing external
pressures from affecting judicial decisions.

By implementing these measures, the Indian judiciary can become more accountable,
transparent, and efficient. Such reforms would not only enhance public awareness but also
serve as a strong deterrent against judges engaging in wrongful acts.
In conclusion, judges are held to high standards in society and are revered as superhuman
figures. Any behavior that falls below these standards and weakens citizens' trust in the
judicial system should be condemned and appropriately punished. Reforming the judicial
accountability framework and code of conduct in India is essential to ensure a just and
efficient legal system that upholds the faith of its citizens.

14
REFERENCES:

 Justice R.K. Abicbandani, Judicial Independence of Dependent Judiciary 14-15 (The

GNLU Law Review, August 2008, Volume I, Issue 1).
 Sunil Deshta And Kamal Jeet Kaur Sooch, Philosophy Of Judicial Accountability: An
Introspection 54(Civil and Military Law Journal, April-June, 2009).
 G. Manohar Rao, G.B. Reddy, V. Geeta Rao, Judiciary In India; Constitutional
Perspective 113 (2009)
 L. Nathanson, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems2 (Fla. St. U. L. Rev.
209,211,2014).
 Udai Singh & Apoorva Tapas, Judicial Accountability: The Eternal Dilemma 1
(ChristUniversity Law Journal, 1, 2012.
 Faizan Mustafa, Judging the Judges (India Today, April,2018).
 Mona Shukla, Judicial Accountability, an aspect of Judicial Independence 7 (2010).
 Rangin Pallav Tripathi, Defining Misbehaviour for Removal of Judges: The Logical
Fallacy and Necessary Politicisation, [2015] 5.1 NULJ 01

15