www.ijcspub.

org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770

Judicial Accountability: A Comparative Study

Between India And USA.
Siddharth Singh Rathaur

LLM (Criminal Law)

Abstract:

Judicial accountability is a crucial aspect of a healthy democracy, ensuring that the judiciary remains
impartial, efficient, and responsible. This comparative study examines the mechanisms of judicial
accountability in India and the United States, analysing their similarities and differences. The paper
evaluates the effectiveness of judicial accountability measures in both countries, including impeachment,
disciplinary actions, and judicial review. The study reveals that while both countries share similar concerns
about judicial accountability, their approaches differ significantly. India's judicial accountability
mechanisms are largely internal, relying on the judiciary to regulate itself, whereas the USA has a more
external approach, involving congressional oversight and public scrutiny. The paper argues that a balanced
approach, combining internal and external mechanisms, is essential for ensuring judicial accountability. The
study's findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and scholars seeking to strengthen judicial
accountability and promote a more accountable and transparent judiciary in both countries.

Lawyers and Justices are the two pillars of administration of justice. Both pillars are similarly significant.
The Judges who sit in the court of Justice as judicial officers actually they sit in the image of Lord or the
Goddess of Justice. A Judge soaks up fairness keeping him a reserved. His life is peaceful, pure and self
disciplined. When a person becomes a judge, he loses half of his freedom and when he becomes a chief
justice he almost looses the other half. An honest judge does not care about his personal interest.

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 970

www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
Keywords:

• Judicial Accountability,

• District Magistrate. (DJ)

• India and USA, Comparative Study.

• American Bar Association. (ABA)

• Impeachment, Disciplinary Actions.

• Judicial Review, Revise, Report. (RRR) Article 13

• Independent Judicial Accountability Commission (IJAC)

• All India Report. (AIR)

• Supreme Court. (SC)

Introduction.

Judicial Accountability: A comparative study between India and USA.

The notion of judicial accountability is critical in safeguarding the integrity and openness of the legal system.
This research paper compares judicial accountability1 in India with the United States. In India, procedures
such as judicial review, public interest litigations, and the role of the Supreme Court in ensuring
accountability are critical to examine. In contrast, the United States' system emphasizes judicial
independence, checks and balances, and the function of the Judicial Conduct Board in keeping judges
accountable. The comparative analysis will highlight the disparities between these two systems and the
issues they confront in establishing judicial accountability. This study intends to contribute to a better

1
wikipedia, org The Supreme Court.
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 971
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
understanding of judicial accountability and its consequences for the legal systems of India and the United
States by studying the methods, practices, and issues in each country.

• Judicial Accountability.

Q. What are the mechanisms in place for judicial accountability in India?

In the quest of judicial accountability in India, it is critical to respect legal and ethical norms to ensure the
judiciary's integrity. Judicial conduct reviews serve an important role in ensuring accountability by
evaluating and addressing any misbehaviour by judges. The system seeks to promote a fair and unbiased
court by exposing judicial branch personnel to anti-discrimination regulations. Accountability measures go
beyond internal reviews; the public also plays an important role. Open access to justice and the disclosure
of court decisions allow for public scrutiny and transparency, holding judges responsible to the people they
serve. These procedures allow the court to gradually establish a strong authority, improving its credibility
and integrity in the eyes of the people and raising the political cost of any possible misbehaviour. As requests
for judicial responsibility continue to grow, it is critical to establish a balance between accountability and
judicial independence to guarantee the legal system's effective functioning and role in upholding justice in
society.

Q. How does the judicial accountability system in the USA differ from that of India.

In the pursuit of a just and equitable society, the notion of judicial accountability serves as a keystone,
ensuring that judges and judicial personnel are held accountable for their acts as public officials and the
appropriate execution of public tasks. This idea is critical in both the United States and India, where
supervision measures are in place to ensure the integrity of the judicial system and the public's faith in the
court. In the United States, judicial accountability is maintained by a system of checks and balances that
includes multiple oversight systems working together to monitor the behaviour of judges and judiciary
personnel, ensuring that they follow the legal and ethical standards established by the law. Furthermore, the
judiciary in the United States ensures accountability by adjudicating matters involving justice actors,
defending human rights, and monitoring the powers of justice to avoid misuse or wrongdoing within the
system. In contrast, in India, judicial officers, like other government officials in a democratic system, are
accountable to the public for carrying out their tasks properly, emphasising the necessity of openness and
integrity in the judicial process. This shared duty for upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust
emphasizes the need of judicial accountability in both countries, albeit through slightly different operational
frameworks.

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 972

www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
Q. What are the challenges faced in ensuring judicial accountability in both countries?

• In democratic countries, judicial accountability is essential for ensuring that the legal system functions
properly. Oversight measures are put in place to guarantee that judges and Judiciary personnel are held
accountable for their acts as government officials and stewards of public resources, with a focus on
openness and integrity in their behaviour. Courts play an important role in judicial accountability by
adjudicating matters involving justice actors, protecting human rights, and overseeing the authorities
vested in the judiciary to avoid abuse or overstep.

• A proposed constitutional amendment proposes to reduce judges' existing immunity for activities taken
in their official role, with the goal of increasing responsibility and openness in the judiciary.
Accountability, in essence, includes holding individuals accountable for their acts and judgments, asking
them to explain the reasoning behind their actions, a critical feature that also applies to judicial authorities
in a democracy.

• The formation of the Independent Judicial Accountability Commission (IJAC)2, which has authority over
complaints about judicial conduct, demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to maintaining
accountability. Judicial officials, as representatives of government authority, are accountable to the
populace for the proper discharge of their duties, emphasizing the importance of judicial accountability
in maintaining public trust and upholding the rule of law within a democratic context.

• Examining the comparative study of judicial accountability in India and the United States reveals that the
notion of responsibility within the judiciary is critical for preserving the legal system's integrity and
retaining public trust. The formation of India's Independent Judicial Accountability Commission (IJAC)
demonstrates a proactive approach to resolving concerns about judicial conduct and ensuring that judges
are held accountable for their decisions.

• To ensure that the legal system functions properly, a balance must be struck between accountability and
judicial independence. The public's involvement in holding judicial officials responsible cannot be
understated, since transparency and public scrutiny are critical in ensuring that judges answer to the
citizens they serve. Furthermore, the focus on open access to justice and the disclosure of court decisions
highlights the necessity of judicial responsibility in maintaining justice within a democratic context.

• As the drive for a just and equitable society continues, promoting judicial accountability is critical to
ensure that judges and judicial personnel are held accountable for carrying out their public obligations
properly. Moving forward, further research should investigate the efficacy of accountability mechanisms

2
sos.idaho.gov
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 973
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
in both nations, correct any study limitations or gaps, and contribute to the continued growth of
knowledge in the field of judicial accountability.

Image of Judiciary and Ethics for Judges3:

The most essential concept of democracy is that those who govern us must be responsible to us. Currently,
at least two countries allow the people to vote to remove judges arbitrarily, but most democracies grant
significant lawmaking and other power to members of the judiciary who are not only not elected, but also
cannot be removed unless they engage in serious misconduct that brings discredit to their office.

In Victoria, it would be difficult to find a judge who has been dismissed from the bench against his or her
will. Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, said that unelected judges making
judgments on social and economic policy are not democratic since they are only answerable to their
consciences. Against this context, this chapter attempts to evaluate and critique the judiciary's image and
historical narrative in India.

• Image of the Judiciary:

The Judiciary plays a crucial role in our democracy, ensuring efficiency, independence, and impartiality.
According to the Indian notion, the judiciary is not a fortress made of bricks and cement, but rather a temple
of justice and a seat of divinity. It should be as flawless and ideal as is humanly feasible. This is why the
Indian judiciary is held in high regard as a symbol of culture and tradition in both emerging and developed
countries worldwide.

Indeed, every judicial system is made up of two components: the framework provided by the law and the
judges who labor inside it. The status and image of a system are typically heavily influenced by the
commitment, sincerity, fairness, and efficacy of the persons who comprise and manage the entire system.

It should be noted that even if the judicial system is perfectly structured, it may not be an effective justice-
delivery system if the people serving as judicial officers lack the necessary operational skills or are not
motivated to deliver robust substantial justice. Thus, the image of the Judiciary is shaped more by the
individuals who administer the laws than by the laws themselves. For the reasons stated above, society and
the law expect a very high level of behaviour, ethics, temper, civility, humility, honesty, and justice from
members of the Judiciary, since they set the precedent for societal values. They are worshiped, respected,
and regarded as the ideal of societal values. To provide a clear image of the Judiciary's role and expectations,
the following topics will be discussed.

3
K.P Singh vs. High court of H.P 2009
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 974
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
• Judges play a special role in the community:

The seat that judges occupy is not a seat of easy conflict settlement, but one of justice, to which they owe a
strong sense of responsibility and lofty traditions. The high regard in which judges are viewed is not founded
on codified law or a set of ideas outlined in textbooks. It is founded on a reputation, a prestige that has been
steadily built up over time by tradition.It was neither the product of a single Judge or a tradition established
in a single day. This sturdy and robust construction is built upon the foundation of honesty, integrity,
character, justice, and impartiality. It has an un-rivaled record in this regard. According to history, the law
appears to have insisted on the Judge preserving decorum and adhering to the code of judicial conduct
required for the administration of justice to be unblemished.

1. India:

• Constitution of India:

• The Indian Constitution establishes the foundation for the judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court,
High Courts, and Subordinate Courts. It describes the appointment, tenure, and dismissal of judges.
Articles 124–147 of the Constitution deal with the organization, independence, and competences of the
Supreme Court, whereas Articles 214–237 deal with High Courts.Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

• This statute establishes the system for investigating and proving the misbehaviour or incompetence of a
Supreme Court or High Court judge. It describes the procedure for initiating inquiries against judges and
the makeup of inquiry panels.

• Judicial Standards and Accountability Act, 2010:

• This statute4 sets a framework for holding judges accountable. It requires judges to reveal their assets and
liabilities and specifies the procedure for filing complaints against judges.

4
Act 2010

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 975

www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

• This act5 defines and governs contempt of court, which includes activities that scandalise or undermine
the court's authority.

• It establishes the courts' authority to penalize disrespectful behaviour.

2. Position in the Other Country:

• United States Constitution:

• The U.S. Constitution established the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and empowers
Congress to create lesser federal courts.

• Article III of the Constitution establishes the organization and authority of the federal judiciary.

• Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 19806:

This statute sets the procedures for dealing with charges of misconduct or incapacity against federal judges.

It established the Judicial Conference of the United States to monitor the proceedings and the Judicial
Councils to examine complaints.

• Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

This code establishes ethical norms for federal judges' conduct on and off the court.

It addresses issues such as impartiality, honesty, avoidance of impropriety, and external activities.

• Judicial Improvements Act of 20027:

This statute requires the head judge of each circuit to develop a procedure for receiving and considering
accusations of judicial misconduct or impairment.

It describes the procedures for processing complaints and potential disciplinary measures.

5
Act 1971
6
Act 1980
7
Act 2002
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 976
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
These are some of the primary statutes and regulations controlling judicial behaviour and accountability in
India and the United States. Both nations have processes in place to guarantee that judges follow high ethical
standards and are held accountable for their decisions. However, particular methods and institutional
structures may differ across the two nations.

3. United State of America,

The American Bar Association8 created its Canons of Judicial Ethics for the first time in 1924. These canons,
however, were meant to be guides rather than statutory limitations, therefore their applicability was
restricted because they did not address difficult ethical dilemmas. To address these difficulties, the American
Bar Association established the Model Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972. This Code applies to all judicial
officers and non-lawyer judges, including town justices and justices of the peace, with the exception of part-
time judges, judges pro bono, and retired judges. The ABA revised the 1972 Code to reflect social
developments, and the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association adopted the new Model Code
of Judicial Conduct on August 7, 1990.

The Model Code of Judicial Conduct is divided into four Canons, each with numbered Rules, as well as
Comments that normally follow and clarify each Rule. The Scope and Terminology sections offer further
advice for understanding and applying the Code. The Application section determines when the different
Rules apply to a judge or judicial candidate.

However, it is not feasible nor appropriate to describe all of the exact regulations listed in the sections under
each Canon, thus I will just discuss the canons in brief, rather than the principles specified beneath them.

1. A judge is responsible for upholding and promoting the judiciary's independence, integrity, and
impartiality, as well as avoiding impropriety and the perception thereof,

2. A judge must carry out the responsibilities of the judicial office impartially, competently, and
diligently.

3. A judge's personal and extra-judicial activities must be conducted in such a way that they do not
interfere with the requirements of judicial office.

8
ABA 1924 Judicial ethics
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 977
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
4. A judge or candidate for judicial office may not engage in political or campaign activities that
undermines the judiciary's independence, integrity, or impartiality.

• Need for the Judicial Accountability,

1. Power in a 'democratic republic' must be accountable to the one who wields it in order to avoid disaster
in any democratic government. Accountability must extend beyond politicians to include bureaucrats,
judges, and everyone else in positions of authority. In a democracy, power and position are associated
with duty, and every public officeholder must be continually responsible to the people, who hold political
sovereignty.

2. The judicial system oversees the administration of justice via the use of courts. Judges are the humans
who preside over the courts. They are more than just outward representations of courts; they are genuine
representatives in flesh and blood. The manner in which judges carry out their tasks determines the
image of courts and the credibility of the judicial system itself. There is unquestionably a need to hold
the judiciary accountable, since deviating from ideals in the judiciary is considerably more hazardous
than in any other branch of government, as the judiciary must serve as the custodian of our constitution.

3. Judges' responsibility and answerability are not new concepts. This avoids the consolidation of power
in the hands of a single organ of the state, particularly in nations where judicial activism interferes with
and intrudes on the domain of other organs. However, judicial independence is a prerequisite for every
judge, whose oath of office compels him to operate without fear or favour, affection or ill intent, and to
maintain the country's constitution and laws.

• Lack of Judicial Accountability in India,

The state is divided into three organs: executive, legislative, and judicial, and each organ derives authority
from the Constitution. The Constitution established the High Courts and the Supreme Court as independent
watchdog institutions tasked with not only dispensing justice but also ensuring that the executive and
legislature did not exceed the authority granted to them by the Constitution.

Thus, the judiciary was granted the authority to interpret laws and the Constitution, as well as to overturn
executive actions that violated any law or citizens' fundamental rights. It also had the jurisdiction to review
whether laws enacted by Parliament complied with the Constitution and declare them void if they did not.
In 1973, the Supreme Court gained the authority to strike down constitutional changes that it deemed to

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 978

www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
contradict the core structure of the Constitution by a novel interpretation of the clause authorizing Parliament
to modify the Constitution. Many legislation and constitutional changes have been overturned by the courts
throughout this time.

Throughout this, India's superior courts have developed as possibly the most powerful judiciary in the world,
with practically imperial and unfettered power. While executive action and even legislation might often be
overturned by the courts, court orders, often given without notice to the affected parties, were unquestionable
and were to be followed by all executive officials under penalty of contempt of court. Of course, these
authorities were frequently used to address excessive presidential inactivity.

While acquiring these powers, the Court took over the authority of appointing judges through an even more
creative (referred to as purposive) interpretation of the law relating to government appointment of judges.
justices of the High Court and Supreme Court are currently appointed by a collegium of senior Supreme
Court justices. The judiciary has therefore evolved into a self-perpetuating oligarchy. There is no mechanism
for selecting judges, and there is no openness in the process.

In particular, no consideration is given to examining judges' records or credentials in terms of their

ideological adherence to the constitutional ideals of a secular, socialist democratic republic, as well as their
understanding of or sensitivity to the country's common people who are poor, marginalized, and unable to
fight for their rights in court.

As a result, Indian courts have practically unlimited and unrestrained authority that no other court in the
world can match. In these conditions, it is critical that judges of the superior court be held accountable for
their performance and conduct, whether for corruption or for disregarding constitutional ideals and people'
rights. Unfortunately, neither the Constitution nor any other legislation has established an organization or
procedure to evaluate judges' performance or investigate complaints against them. According to the
Constitution, judges of the High Court and Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment.

In India, the contempt statute permits any High Court or Supreme Court judge to prosecute someone with
criminal contempt and imprison them on the grounds that they have "scandalized the Court or lowered the
Court's authority." What "scandalises or lowers" a Court's authority is also the Judge's subjective assessment.
In Arundhati Roy's case9, a panel of two Supreme Court justices charged her with contempt and sentenced
her to prison simply for criticizing the Court in her affidavit.

In 1991, the Supreme Court issued another clever decision stating that no judge of a superior court may be
subjected to a criminal probe without the express approval of the Chief Justice of India. This decision was
used to keep several judges from being investigated and prosecuted despite documentary proof of

9
AIR 06-03-2002.
IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 979
www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
corruption, fraud, misappropriation, and other offences. This has also enhanced judges' impunity, as they
have come to believe that they can get away with any form of wrongdoing, even criminal activity, without
fear of facing criminal charges or removal. All of this paints an unsettling image of a lack of accountability
in India's higher courts.

There is no realistic way to pursue disciplinary or criminal action against judges who commit misbehaviour
or crimes.

If you disclose them in public, you risk being treated with contempt. This lack of accountability, along with
the immense unfettered powers that the courts have obtained and are using, renders the judiciary a very
dangerous institution and a real threat to Indian democracy. This lack of accountability has resulted in
significant corruption among the upper courts, as seen by the current series of judicial scandals in India.

Conclusion:

The study emphasized the need of maintaining order and security as a means of achieving justice. The
necessity and importance of justice being recognized throughout the vein of the regulated and civilized
society was unquestionably acknowledged, but courts of justice are the vehicle of justice with the support
of experienced counsels and dignified judges. It was also demonstrated how the goal of delivering impartial
justice can only be accomplished with the participation of honest, knowledgeable, diligent, bright, and men
of character on the Bar and impartial, full of integrity, righteous, and fair-minded individuals on the Bench.

The examination in this topic demonstrates that judges serve as trustees of the collective welfare by
projecting an honest and incorruptible image. It also demonstrated how justice was sometimes served by
rescuing an innocent person from the clutches of evil individuals. It further underlines that the judiciary is
not the responsibility of a single state, but rather the foundation of the whole democratic system. The survey
demonstrates that the court is given the highest priority in compared to other branches of government.

The rationale for this is that the judiciary is designed to safeguard the Constitution, to provide justice, and
to serve as a custodian for other organs. However, in recent

years, the public's trust in the court has waned. The study indicated that India's judiciary has enjoyed very
high respect..

The foundation of the judiciary is the people's trust and confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver fair
and impartial justice; if the foundation is allowed to be shaken by acts that tend to create disaffection and

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 980

www.ijcspub.org © 2024 IJCSPUB | Volume 14, Issue 2 May 2024 | ISSN: 2250-1770
disrespect for the authority of the court by casting doubt on the court's workings, the evidence of the judicial
system disintegrates. The judiciary should likewise look after the officials in question, and considerable
consideration has been given to this issue on several occasions.

The study concludes that accountability is a fundamental component of democracy. The organs of a
democratic government maintain a system of checks and balances and hold one another responsible. As a
result, accountability for any public institution is critical to the survival of democracy. Unaccountability of
the court has posed a severe danger to democracy, leading to corruption. Absolute and limitless powers
given to any high public institution without accountability are destructive to society as a whole; so, under a
democracy, all organs of the state are responsible and accountable to the people.

The judiciary is no exception. The High Courts and Supreme Court must set good examples and serve as
role models for others to follow. Judges are human people, and it is unrealistic to assume that they will never
make a mistake. As a result, in a civilized society, checks and balances are necessary to prevent the abuse
of power. A strong court that lacks accountability is not just an affront to our Constitution, but also a recipe
for catastrophe for our democracy.

The problem must be addressed promptly. The question of judicial accountability cannot be ignored
indefinitely. Transparency and accountability are unquestionably important elements of a democratic
judiciary. There is no rationale for India's court to believe it is immune to criticism.

Judicial independence does not imply the lack of responsibility. Accountability ensures transparency. The
fact that independence may require some intervention demonstrates that other principles, such as fair and
impartial trials, are more vital than the former, and these goals may be clearly highlighted through judicial
accountability. Independence should be used specifically to achieve this goal, rather than as an end in itself.
Every organization is answerable to another organization that is independent of itself. In today's world, the
court cannot avoid rigorous examination for its performance and the behavior of its members. If
accountability is not handled seriously, we may witness a terrible link between corrupt judges and
politicians, resulting in the death of democracy. It is also crucial to remember that accountability in the court
differs from the other two institutions; the unique character of the office necessitates independent treatment,
which benefits the nation.

IJCSP24B1221 International Journal of Current Science (IJCSPUB) www.ijcspub.org 981