The Indian judiciary is often perceived with a sense of grandeur and reverence, influenced by its cultural and social significance. This perception contrasts sharply with experiences in other countries, such as the United States, where judges often blend into the academic and legal landscape with humility and diligence. This disparity raises a critical question: Do we hold our judges to the same standards of accountability as the high esteem in which we place them?
The tragic case of Twisha Sharma has brought this question to the forefront. Media reports allege that Giribala Singh, a retired judge and the mother-in-law of the deceased, used her influence to assist her son in evading legal scrutiny following the incident. Such conduct, if proven, poses significant ethical dilemmas, especially given her former judicial position.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, an internationally recognized framework, underscores the importance of not only actual propriety but also the appearance of propriety. The public’s confidence in the judiciary is crucial and can be eroded by any perceived influence or favoritism. As the Principles state, “The behavior and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” This sentiment echoes the historic English case, R v. Sussex Justices [1924], emphasizing the judiciary’s need for an impeccable reputation.
The MP High Court’s cancellation of anticipatory bail for Giribala Singh highlights the judiciary’s response to potential conflicts of interest. Such actions are intended to maintain public trust by showing that judicial privilege does not shield individuals from accountability.
The Bangalore Principles further assert that judges must remain uninfluenced by public opinion or media pressure, maintaining independence from external influences. This is critical as narratives and public discourse can shape legal proceedings long before formal evidence is presented. Therefore, judges are expected to adhere to ethical standards that far exceed those required of ordinary citizens.
The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct similarly mandates that judges must sustain public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality. This requirement extends beyond courtroom behavior, integrating judicial conduct with the broader institution’s legitimacy.
The Twisha Sharma case illustrates the need for a judiciary that not only commands respect but also embraces the accountability that comes with its power. A constitutional democracy must ensure that the reverence for judges is matched by rigorous standards of scrutiny and responsibility.
