Judicial Ethics: The Foundation of Justice and Public Trust

~Sura Anjana Srimayi

INTRODUCTION

In every democratic nation, the judiciary is the ultimate protector of the Constitution, the vanguard of fundamental rights, and the last bastion of adjudication of disputes. The success and authority of this vital pillar of the system of government depend entirely on the unshakeable trust of the public in its impartiality, integrity, and even-handedness. This trust is carefully established and preserved through the uniform practice of judges following a strong set of principles called judicial ethics. Not just professional rules, judicial ethics form a moral compass that ensures those who have been entrusted with administering justice behave in the utmost probity, independence, and accountability. As countries across the globe are confronted with the intricacies of governance and pressures for increased transparency, the developing context of judicial ethics, especially in a rich democracy such as India, is indicative of an ongoing quest towards preserving the purity of justice.

I. The Core Pillars of Judicial Ethics

Judicial ethics are based on a number of unchanging principles which are considered universally essential for the proper performance of judicial duties. Judges are guided by these principles in both their professional and private lives so that not only are their actions fair, but they appear to be fair.

1. Independence: This is the bedrock. Judges have to be independent of all outside pressures – political, economic, social, and personal. They have to make decisions on the sole basis of facts and law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. This independence is applicable to the judiciary as a whole and to individual judges.
2. Impartiality: A judge should be independent of bias or prejudice in word and deed. This involves not only having no pre-conceived views regarding the parties or matters but also taking care that no action or statement can lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Impartiality applies also to the process of decision-making.
3. Integrity: Judges should show unblemished honesty, moral integrity, and rectitude. Their private behavior should be impeccable, since integrity is the basis for public trust in the judiciary.
4. Propriety: This canons requires that judges eschew not only real impropriety but also the semblance of impropriety in all their conduct. All their actions, both official and personal, must be in keeping with the dignity of the judicial office.
5. Equality: All persons appearing before the courts are to be treated by the judges with respect and fairness, without discrimination based on any ground. Equal access to justice and equal enforcement of the law are to be ensured.
6. Competence and Diligence: Judges are required to keep their knowledge, skills, and personal qualities necessary to efficiently discharge their duties in a high standard. They are required to diligently, promptly, and effectively execute their judicial work.

These principles as a whole enshrine the dictum that "justice need not only be done but must also be seen to be done," a doctrine which is well entrenched in judicial philosophy across the globe.

II. Judicial Ethics in India: Evolution, Codes, and Real Changes

India, with its sprawling and convoluted judicial system, has been on a consistent path to enhancing judicial ethics and accountability, driven by demands from society as well as self-reflection. As the Indian Constitution upholds the independence of the judiciary, the proactive movement for ethical norms has seen various key developments that have brought about concrete changes in the behavior and monitoring of judges.

A. The "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" (1997/1999): Codifying Ethical Norms

The biggest step towards formalising judicial ethics in India was the endorsement of the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life." In 1997, the Supreme Court of India, in its Full Court, endorsed this charter as a model for judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This was later ratified by the Chief Justices' Conference in 1999 and endorsed by all the High Courts.

Real Change 1: Formal Codification of Ethical Standards. Prior to this Restatement, judicial behavior was guided mostly by unenacted conventions and self-regulation. The Restatement was a first-of-its-kind formal codification of ethical standards applicable to the higher judiciary. Though it is not a law and hence not legally binding in the same manner, it is an influential moral guide and a public articulation of anticipated judicial behavior. It enunciated indicative values, such as:

• Not going near individual members of the Bar, especially those who are practicing in the same court.
• Not allowing immediate family members who are lawyers to appear before them or be connected with the cases they are hearing.
• Not granting interviews to the media, allowing judgments to speak for themselves.
• Not receiving gifts or hospitality except from close friends and family.
• Not indulging in speculation in shares or stocks, or directly/indirectly in trade or business.
• Being ever aware of standing under public scrutiny and refraining from any act unbefitting their exalted office.

This formalization, although aspirational, provided a better framework against which judicial behavior could be assessed by peers and the public.

B. The "In-House Procedure" (1999): Building An Internal Accountability Mechanism

After the Restatement, an "in-house procedure" for addressing allegations of misconduct against High Court and Supreme Court judges was instituted by the Supreme Court, by a resolution in December 1999.

Actual Change 2: Institutionalized Internal Inquiry. Previously, processes of judicial accountability for judges of higher courts were mostly restricted to the slow and politically motivated parliamentary process of impeachment. The "in-house procedure" provided an internal, though non-statutory, process. Under this process, if there is a valid complaint, the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of a High Court may form a 3-judge committee to investigate the allegations. If grave allegations are found to be true, the committee can recommend holding proceedings for removal.

While praised as a move towards self-governance and accountability, the in-house process has been criticized on grounds of its non-statutory basis, secrecy (hearings are normally confidential), and non-binding consequences of advice or transfer, causing public discussions over its ultimate efficacy in grave cases. However, it is a tangible effort on the part of the judiciary to meet accountability issues from within.

C. Legislative Initiatives and Public Scrutiny: Driving External Accountability

The call for higher accountability has also come in the form of legislative efforts and public scrutiny.

Real Change 3: Legislative Drive for Statutory Accountability. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, although it expired, was a major legislative initiative to establish a statutory regime of judicial accountability and set up an autonomous National Judicial Oversight Committee. Its introduction underscored the continuing public and political clamor for a more regularized and open mechanism for handling judicial misbehavior, such as including the facility for obligatory asset declaration by judges.

Real Change 4: Increasing Transparency through Technology. More recently, the live streaming of Supreme Court Constitution Bench hearings has been a gigantic leap towards transparency. This enables citizens to see the court proceedings themselves, judicial submissions, and judicial behavior first hand, creating greater public oversight and potentially more accountability by placing judges literally "under the public eye" in real time. The larger e-Courts initiative, which seeks to digitalize court proceedings and records, also indirectly supports transparency and accountability by bringing more information on the judiciary within reach.

D. Ongoing Challenges and the Path Forward

Even with these substantial advances, the path towards flawless judicial ethics and accountability in India remains plagued by challenges. The staggering backlog of cases strains judicial conscientiousness. Doubt regarding Collegium system transparency for appointment of judges persists, at times provoking questions on the ethical aspect of impartiality in selection. The challengingly difficult process of impeachment and the frequently cloak-and-dagger nature of the in-house mechanism create loopholes in sound accountability.

Debates remain on the requirements of an independent, statutory National Judicial Commission able to deal with both appointments and complaints, ensuring judicial independence as well as increased accountability. The contempt of court power, though necessary to uphold judicial dignity, also calls for delicate ethical use in order not to suppress valid criticism.

CONCLUSION

Judicial ethics are not just some idealized concepts; they are the real-world expression of the judiciary's adherence to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is actually meted out without fear or favour. In India, the making of the ethical principles concrete by way of the "Restatement of Values," the creation of an "in-house procedure," and the growing adoption of transparency through technology represent epochal changes. These changes are a testament to a vibrant system working to respond to changing expectations of its people, solidifying the realization that the legitimacy of the judiciary directly stems from its unshakeable commitment to the highest ethical principles. The ongoing discussion and reforms illustrate the recognition that an independent, robust, and ethical judiciary is crucial for the wellness and vigor of India's democracy.

"Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc