Introduction

The fifth panel highlighted the multi-faceted dimensions of behavioural accountability within the Indian Judicial system. Moving beyond the constitutional frameworks, the panelists delved into the impact of the conduct of the judges both on and off the bench.

The session was moderated by Mr. Shardul Kularni, Assistant Professor at school of law, BMJ Munjal University. Justice (retired) Madan B Lokur reflected on the evolving understanding of misconduct over the past forty years and highlighted the deficiencies in the impeachment process and in-house inquiry process. Dr. Anurag Bhaskar emphasised the importance of perception of impartiality and suggested structural reforms to the functioning of administrative and registry departments. Dr. Swapnil Tripathi criticized the trend of celebrity judges and IAS officers and discussed the legal implications that lack formal reference to the legal provisions. Professor (Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy articulated and conceptualised the intentional insulation of the judiciary from accountability and discussed the paradox of strict propriety without proper enforcement.

Moderator Brief: Mr. Shardool Kulkarni (Professor at BML Munjal University)

The moderator introduced the panel discussion by noting that while conventional anonymity of judges was once a key component of the dignity of the Court, this has been shifted into vicarious liability because of social media and live-streaming. He explained behavioural accountability as behaviour extraneous to the merits of a case. Several important questions were raised such as whether Judges must be held accountable for remarks made on the bench, such as referring to the homeless as parasites, their conduct in private religious functions, or even their post-retirement interviews justifying previous judgements. He questioned whether holding judges accountable for such conduct could serve as a smoke screen for impinging on judicial independence and whether existing in-house mechanisms are sufficient.

Speaker1: Rtd. Justice Madan Lokur (Former judge of the Supreme Court of India)

Justice Madan B Lokur addressed the evolving standards of judicial propriety by illustrating an anecdote from 1970s, in which a Hon’ble Chief Justice reprimanded a Hon’ble Justice for eating golgappas in the public, showing how the grey areas of conduct exist. He noted that while what was once considered as a private act, like dancing at someone’s marriage, is now up for public view because of the era of social media and live-streaming. This, accordingly, has made every comment or remark from the bench as a potential source of perceived bias, which is argued as worse than accusing the Judge of a misconduct.

Regarding the mechanisms of institutional control, the speaker shared a personal example of participating in an in-house inquiry that dealt with a Judge accused of receiving a bribe. He also pointed out that despite a report was filed confirming the intention it eventually led to the transferring of the Judge. He also critiqued the problem of political inaction that has led to the stagnation in the impeachment process, as in the impeachment motion against Hon’ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, which has been pending before the speaker for considerably long time. He concluded by pointing to international examples such as Justice Claraece Thomas and Justice Scalia in the U.S., which demonstrates that these debates are ongoing and are global.

Speaker 2: Dr. Anurag Bhaskar (Additional Registrar-cum-Director, Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India)

He emphasised that as far as the public is concerned, the perception of impartiality is the foundation of judicial legitimacy. He referred to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and drew examples of judges who felt proud of their religious or caste affiliations, questioning if such conduct is consistent with their constitutional oath. He further elaborated on administrative accountability and focused on the master of the roster system and the opaque process followed by the registries in the listing of the cases.

He further pointed to the misuse of public funds as an area of concern, while referring to the installation of expensive glass panels by a Hon’ble Chief Justice, followed by their demolition by another Hon’ble Justice. To address these gaps, he proposed the setting up the Office of Judicial Ombudsman, similar to the models in Kenya and UK, comprising retired judges tasked with investigating misconduct allegations. 

Speaker 3: Dr. Swapnil Tripathi (Lead, Charkha (Centre for Constitutional Law), Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)

He contended that while adulatory behaviour towards politicians has historical roots (referring to the letters written by the Hon’ble Justice Chagla to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Hon’ble Justice Bhagawati’s committed judiciary statements), they had been “outliers” rather than a norm till now. He observed the shift towards celebrity judges who flex through social media platforms. 

He further raised objection to judicial decisions that are untethered from the law, by using “Stone Cold” Steve Austin’s catchphrase – “that is the bottom-line because the judge said so”. Specifically, he referred to a case in 2025 which involved a youtuber facing a writ petition under Article 32, filed against him as a private person for personal remarks, which he argued moved the role of the court away from the court of law to that of a court of facts.

He noted that impeachment is practically impossible due to the high two-thirds majority requirement. Furthermore, he highlighted a major loophole where judges on the verge of impeachment, like Justice Soumitra Sen, can simply resign to avoid consequences while retaining their pensions

Speaker 4: Professor Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Vice-chancellor of the National Law School of India University)

Professor (Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy emphasised the unique constitutional position of the judiciary as an institution insulated from popular accountability to preserve the independence of the judiciary. He pointed that while the primary model of accountability is decisional (based on written, and publicly accessible reasoning), there is an increasing popularity in behavioural accountability. He highlighted a paradox in India where there are very high expectations of propriety but the state does not provide for mechanisms for enforcement. 

The present framework offers an extreme end in the form of impeachment which is too formalistic, hence ineffective, or other informal arbitrary procedure followed internally. He suggested that a Bill if designed with robust due process safeguards and minimal external participation could provide the necessary middle ground addressing public concerns while protecting judicial independence. 

Edited by: Aditi Bhojnagarwala and Keerthi Sathvika Tammineedi