9.8.1 The State Governments of Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka . When a Judge is elevated to the superior courts it is not to give him an opportunity to learn and acquire expertise in new branches of law but to make use of the experience and expertise he has already acquired before his elevation.
and Madhya Pradesh are in favour of criminal courts being presided over by Judges who have specialized in criminal law. The State of Himachal Pradesh however says that Judges specialized in criminal law may be assigned criminal work only in bigger cities where the workload justifies. The State Government of Kerala is not in favour of Judges specialized in criminal law being posted to do criminal work. Other States have not responded. It is seen that majority of the State Governments are in favour of specialization.
9.9 ACCOUNTABILITY
9.9.1 Judicial credibility is enhanced when it is transparent and accountable. Sturdy independence is the basic virtue of the Judiciary. The Judiciary is independent in the sense that it is not answerable to any one. This does not give it license to function arbitrarily. It has to function in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws. The Judiciary is as much subject to rule of law as any one else. It has to discharge the judicial functions assigned to it in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution. In that sense it is accountable to fulfill the constitutional mandate.
9.9.2 The High Court is given power of control over subordinate courts by Article 235 of the Constitution. By and large this power if properly exercised is sufficient to ensure accountability of the subordinate courts. What is needed is greater vigilance and effective exercise of this power.
9.9.3 So far as High Courts are concerned no similar power of control has been conferred on any one and not even the Supreme Court. The High Courts in that sense are independent though their judgments can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Under our Constitution, a Judge of a High Court or of the Supreme Court of India can be removed from his office by the President only for ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’ and only in the manner provided for in Article 124(4); that is by an affirmative vote of at least half the total membership of each House of Parliament and a majority vote of two thirds of the members of each House present and voting on the motion for the removal of the Judge.
9.9.4 It is well known that impeachment motion against Justice Ramaswami failed even though the Committee on enquiry had held that serious charges of misconduct were proved warranting his removal. This indicates that impeachment provisions cannot be easily pressed into service to discipline the earring Judge. The recent incidents alleging serious aberrations in the conduct of Judges of some of the High Courts have shaken the confidence of the people in the judiciary. Common people feel very bad that if the Judges are guilty of serious misconduct nothing can be done about it. The problem is serious and needs urgent attention
at the highest level. It is imperative that the judiciary itself takes the initiative to set its house in order and come forward with credible solutions without undermining the independence of the judiciary. Constitution of a National Judicial Commission and amending Article 124 to make impeachment less difficult are some of the alternatives which are being discussed at the national level.
9.9.5 The Committee however feels that the aberrations in the conduct of Judges can be checked or even corrected if the problem is noticed at the earliest and efforts made to correct them. In the High Court the Chief Justice is regarded as only first among the equals. Except constituting benches and assigning work he does not exercise any authority over his colleagues. This has considerably eroded discipline which is so necessary for any institution. Some Judges do not attend the court punctually; reserved judgments are not rendered for long time, sometimes for years; many cases are kept as part-heard for long period; complaints are received of some lawyers receiving favourable orders, there are complaints that some Judges act vindictively against some lawyers; there are complaints that lawyers are snubbed or insulted; sometimes complaints are also received about corruption and immoral conduct of Judges etc. The Chief Justices’ have no power to look into these problems and feel helpless. If the Chief Justice has the power to look into these complaints and takes immediate corrective action the problem can well be nipped in the bud. There is therefore urgent need to confer power on the Chief Justice to look into such grievances and take suitable corrective measures short of impeachment or pending impeachment process such as:-
i) Advising the Judge suitably.
ii) Disabling the Judge from hearing particular class of cases or cases in which a particular lawyer appears.
iii) Withdraw the judicial work from the Judge for a specified period. iv) Censure the Judge.
v) Advise the Judge to seek transfer
vi) Advise the Judge to seek voluntary retirement.
9.9.6 There are other measures that can be taken to ensure accountability so far as proper discharge of judicial functions is concerned.