Judiciary suffers from a deep crisis of credibility


It is often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant — a reminder that transparency is the foundation of reliability. Without transparency, public trust or faith cannot meaningfully exist. Undeniably, the judiciary has traditionally enjoyed greater public confidence than any other constitutional branch, whether Parliament or the Executive. Even the so-called fourth pillar of democracy — the media — has, in recent years, been grappling with a serious crisis of credibility.
However, signs now suggest that the judiciary’s own trustworthiness is also facing erosion. The subordinate judiciary at the district level is frequently criticised by the public for perceived corruption. While the higher judiciary continues to command relatively greater confidence, recent developments indicate that this faith, too, may be waning. Government data has revealed a striking figure that has reignited debate over judicial accountability in India: over the past decade, more than 8,200 complaints have reportedly been received against sitting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
This number raises serious questions not only about judicial conduct but also about the manner in which such complaints are processed. How many of these complaints have actually reached a logical conclusion remains an open and pressing question. Depending on the findings of in-house enquiries, outcomes may range from dismissal of complaints to informal advisories, while, in the rarest instances, matters proceed towards impeachment through Parliament — a path that has historically been exceptional and politically complex. The public understandably expects timely inquiries and decisive action against judges found wanting, rather than processes that move at a glacial pace.
Although confidentiality is often justified as essential to preserving judicial independence, excessive opacity can fuel speculation and deepen public distrust — particularly when complaints number in the thousands. Striking a careful balance between independence and accountability, therefore, remains one of the most critical challenges facing the Indian judiciary today.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Uncouth Attitude of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is Against the Basic Structure of the Constitution

Image
The behaviour of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin is often found to be uncouth, indecorous, and uncivilised. He has been generating controversy and turmoil that could be easily avoided. For instance, during Prime Minister Modi's recent visit to Tamil Nadu for official business, Mr. Stalin was absent without a plausible reason. His absence insulted the people of the state more than it did the Prime Minister, especially since he was in Rameshwaram to inaugurate the Pamban bridge, which connects the mainland of the state to the historic religious island. He and his party claim to uphold the Constitution of India, which emphasises three basic structural doctrines: federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights. Therefore, it is courteous for Chief Minister Stalin to be present to receive the Prime Minister when he visits the state for governmental purposes. However, his absence in the official functions of Prime Minister demonstrates his arrogance, ignorance, and total disrespe...
Read more

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more