The judiciary is the cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, charged with upholding constitutional values and serving as an impartial arbiter of disputes. Recent developments surrounding allegations against a sitting high court judge underscore the importance of ensuring judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary. Allegations of hate speech and communal bias attributed to a member of the bench not only question individual conduct but also highlight broader concerns about maintaining the integrity of judicial institutions. At the heart of the issue is the judge’s alleged inflammatory speech, which reportedly targeted minority communities and expressed opinions on politically charged matters.

Such remarks, if verified, stand in stark contrast to the ethical standards expected of judges. The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a guiding code adopted by the Supreme Court, emphasises neutrality, restraint, and impartiality in both judicial pronouncements and personal conduct. A deviation from these principles risks eroding public trust, particularly when statements appear to contravene the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution provides a robust mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct. Under Article 124(4), the removal of a judge involves a parliamentary motion supported by a detailed inquiry.

Advertisement

This process, outlined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, ensures that any action against a judge is grounded in substantiated evidence rather than political motivations. While the current notice by MPs marks the initial step in this process, the journey ahead is fraught with procedural and political challenges. Historically, no judge in India has been impeached, reflecting the gravity and complexity of such proceedings. Beyond the procedural aspects, the allegations against the judge raise critical questions about the judiciary’s role as a neutral protector of rights.

In a pluralistic society like India, the judiciary must not only be impartial but also be seen as impartial by all sections of society. Allegations of bias or inflammatory rhetoric can deeply undermine this perception, especially when they appear to stoke communal discord. This incident highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the ethical responsibilities of judges, whose words and actions carry profound implications for public perception and institutional credibility. At the same time, it is crucial to balance judicial accountability with judicial independence. A hasty or politically motivated inquiry risks setting a precedent that could weaken the judiciary’s autonomy. The focus must remain on ensuring a fair and thorough investigation that adheres to constitutional principles.

The judiciary’s credibility hinges on its ability to embody fairness and inclusivity. Any breach of this trust diminishes its authority and undermines democratic governance. Upholding judicial ethics is not merely a matter of individual accountability; it is essential for maintaining public confidence in the institution as a whole. The current allegations present an opportunity for the judiciary and Parliament to reaffirm their commitment to these ideals, ensuring that courts continue to stand as a bulwark of justice in a diverse and dynamic democracy.