Crisis in the Courts: Judicial Accountability in India Demands Urgent Reform and Transparency
By Brijesh Trivedi (President Gujarat High Court Advocates Association)
In a powerful call to introspection, the Indian judiciary is facing a crisis—not from external forces, but from within. At a time when trust in democratic institutions is being tested globally, India’s judiciary, traditionally seen as the custodian of constitutional values, finds itself grappling with a crisis of credibility.
Recent controversies have cast a long shadow over judicial integrity. Allegations of bench manipulation involving Justice Yeshwant Varma have ignited fierce public debate—not just about the accusations themselves, but about the judiciary’s opaque internal mechanisms. The lack of transparency in the in-house procedure and the deafening silence from judicial leadership have raised troubling questions about accountability. More than anything, it has created the perception that senior judges are above the very law they are sworn to uphold.
This is not an isolated concern. The judiciary’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against a former Chief Justice of India drew widespread condemnation. The unusual scenario of the accused presiding over proceedings sent shockwaves through legal and civil society, damaging the institution’s image. More disturbing was the subsequent dismissal—and quiet reinstatement—of the complainant’s husband and brother, a development that bypassed the very judicial review process countless others must endure.
Such events point to a disturbing pattern: the erosion of internal accountability and the growing perception of judicial elitism.
At the heart of the structural concerns lies the Collegium system. Introduced to safeguard judicial independence, it now faces criticism for fostering opacity and potential nepotism in judicial appointments. Questions have emerged about the fairness of appointments, where recurring family names and political affiliations appear to overshadow merit. Critics describe a “Judge Uncle syndrome,” where lineage and loyalty are favoured over experience and competence.
Legal experts argue that India’s judicial selection process urgently needs reform, anchored in transparency and objectivity. Referencing American legal scholar C. Dale McClain’s framework for evaluating judicial candidates, several critical qualities are being overlooked in today’s appointment processes. These include:
- Legal acumen and clarity of thought
- Substantial trial or legal experience
- Integrity, financial responsibility, and sound ethics
- Judicial temperament marked by humility, empathy, and firmness
- Mental and physical capacity for public office
- Proven community involvement and administrative capability
- Devotion to justice and demonstrated professionalism
Further insights suggest that judges must also be resilient under pressure, able to manage personal stress, and open to scrutiny in the public domain—an inherent part of judicial life.
The time has come for India to redefine what it expects from its judiciary. Accountability must be embedded within the institution, not only in law but in culture and conduct. Transparency in appointments, robust mechanisms for redressal, and a renewed commitment to ethical standards are non-negotiable for restoring public trust.
As the judiciary stands at this critical crossroads, the message is clear: reform is not an option—it is a necessity for democracy to thrive.
