Judicial Independence vs. Judicial Accountability
The Structural Tension
The removal process for judges is deliberately arduous to protect judicial independence — ensuring judges cannot be removed by a government displeased with their rulings. But this same protection creates a structural accountability deficit.
- India's judiciary is among the most insulated globally from executive removal — consistent with the principle that "an independent judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution"
- The 1973 supersession controversy (three senior judges superseded for the elevation of Justice A.N. Ray as CJI by the Indira Gandhi government) caused lasting institutional damage — it is cited as the reason protective mechanisms must remain strong
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 — which would have given the executive a formal role in judicial appointments — was struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) (NJAC case), five judges to four, reaffirming collegium primacy
- However, independence of appointment does not address post-appointment accountability — the two need separate mechanisms
- Global comparison: UK's Supreme Court Justices are subject to a statutory conduct complaints framework; US federal judges face impeachment but also informal peer pressure mechanisms; Commonwealth countries are moving toward judicial conduct councils
● Tracked since April 11, 2026 · last seen May 02, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief