Judicial Accountability in India: A Supreme Responsibility or a Power Play?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is frequently regarded as the protector of the Constitution, rendering path-breaking judgments that determine the legal and social landscape of the nation. Nevertheless, issues regarding its accountability, transparency, and judicial overreach have been ongoing. Although the court performs a vital function in ensuring checks and balances, its operation has left serious doubts regarding the separation of powers, uniformity in decision-making, and the effectiveness of the justice delivery system.

One of the key criticisms of the Supreme Court is that it is inconsistent in dealing with sensitive matters. A good example is the Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The court kept changing its orders, lowering the quantum of water release from 15,000 cusecs to 2,000 cusecs. Such changes in decisions may lead to confusion, and it becomes challenging for states to plan and execute water distribution properly. More significantly, such inconsistencies make one wonder whether the court thoroughly thinks through law and order considerations prior to giving orders. To continue enjoying credibility, the judiciary needs to see that its orders are well reasoned, consistent, and feasible.

Another pressing concern is the increasing perception of judicial overreach—wherein the judiciary steps outside its constitutional boundaries and overreaches into executive or legislative functions.

While judicial activism has historically played a crucial role in addressing governance failures, excessive interference in policy decisions can disturb the democratic balance. The Supreme Court has sometimes intervened in matters such as economic policies and administrative decisions, which ideally fall within the purview of the government. The statement of former President Pranab Mukherjee in 2016—”Each organ of our democracy must function within its own sphere and must not take over what is assigned to others”—reminds us of the importance of setting clear limits among the judiciary, legislature, and executive. Self-restraint is required of the Supreme Court to prevent it from becoming a parallel power center instead of a constitutional interpreter. Transparency in the judiciary is another matter of great concern. In 1997, the Supreme Court decided that judges must disclose their assets.

The disclosures have not been as thorough as those required of elected members such as Members of Parliament. The lack of transparency in judicial disclosures engenders public distrust in the probity of judges. A more open system—where judges disclose their financial and personal interests on a regular basis—would increase credibility and public confidence in the judiciary. In addition to declarations of assets, the process of judicial appointments has also been condemned for being opaque. The Collegium system where senior judges are allowed to choose their successors works behind closed doors with minimal accountability. In contrast to executive appointments, there is no parliamentary or public scrutiny. The institution of a more open choice mechanism, perhaps through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) or a reformed collegium system, would assist in providing judicial independence as well as increased accountability. The increasing role of the Supreme Court in governance and policymaking has resulted in the delay in delivering justice. With more than 35 million cases awaiting trial in Indian courts, the judiciary’s growing preoccupation with high-profile cases and suo motu actions deflects attention from the delivery of regular justice. Judicial efficiency should be paramount, so that citizens are delivered justice on time instead of waiting for years.

The court needs to utilize its time judiciously, focusing on urgent cases and instituting reforms to speed up proceedings. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have played a crucial role in tackling social problems, but their abuse has resulted in the courts wasting their time on politically motivated or frivolous cases. The Supreme Court must take a more rigid stance in accepting PILs to avoid abuse. By defining specifically what constitutes a PIL, the court can ensure that only actual cases involving public interest are given attention. In order to regain public faith and provide judicial accountability, some reforms are called for: a transparent appointment process with public oversight, compulsory and comprehensive asset declarations by judges, judicial restraint not to interfere unnecessarily in executive decisions, reforms in case management to give priority to long-pending cases, and a more rigorous filtering process for PILs to avoid abuse. The Supreme Court of India needs to walk a thin line—maintaining independence while operating within constitutional limits. Though it has been a vital institution in maintaining democracy, uncontrolled power can result in judicial supremacy over the executive and legislature.

An open, disciplined, and responsible judiciary is not only a requirement but a necessity for an effective democracy.