#judicialaccountability

READ & LISTEN NOW: https://www.undergroundusa.com/i/160055692/why-do-federal-judges-championviolent-gang-members-over-us-citizens

The Union government has informed Parliament that 8,630 complaints were received against sitting judges over the past ten years. The information was shared by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in a written reply in the Lok Sabha. The data, provided by the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), covers complaints against judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts.

#image_indianexpress.com Nearly a decade after Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in Uttar Pradesh, the judiciary has drawn a clear line. In a significant ruling, a court in Gautam Buddh Nagar has rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to withdraw criminal charges against all accused in the Akhlaq lynching case, calling the request baseless and unjustified. The decision revives a case that had come to symbolise the dangers of mob justice and the long struggle for accountability in communal violence cases. For Akhlaq’s family and rights activists, the order is being seen as a reaffirmation of the rule of law. What the Court Said: Akhlaq lynching case The district court at Surajpur refused to accept the state government’s argument that withdrawing the case would promote social harmony. The judge observed that the prosecution’s request lacked legal merit and that serious offences like murder cannot be diluted through executive discretion. Importantly, the court directed that the trial be fast‑tracked with day‑to‑day hearings, underlining the need for timely justice in cases involving grave crimes. Background: The 2015 Lynching Mohammad Akhlaq was brutally lynched on September 28, 2015, in Bisahda village of Dadri, following rumours that his family had stored beef in their home. The attack, carried out by a mob, triggered nationwide outrage and brought international attention to the issue of mob lynching in India. The incident sparked intense political debate, protests, and soul‑searching over communal polarisation and the failure of institutions to prevent violence fuelled by misinformation. Why the UP Govt Sought Withdrawal The Uttar Pradesh government moved the court seeking withdrawal of charges, reportedly citing inconsistencies in evidence and concerns over maintaining communal peace. Critics, however, argued that the move signalled political interference in a criminal prosecution involving a serious human rights violation. Legal experts have long warned that allowing governments to withdraw such cases sets a dangerous precedent, weakening public faith in justice and emboldening mob violence. Akhlaq lynching case: A Message Beyond the Courtroom By rejecting the plea, the court has sent a strong message that crimes involving mob violence and murder cannot be brushed aside in the name of political convenience or social stability. The ruling reinforces the principle that justice must be decided in courtrooms, not through executive shortcuts. Civil rights groups and opposition leaders welcomed the decision, calling it a rare moment of judicial firmness in cases where victims often struggle against prolonged delays and institutional apathy. Akhlaq lynching case: What Lies Ahead With the court ordering expedited proceedings, the case is now expected to move forward after years of stagnation. The next hearing is scheduled in early January 2026, raising cautious hope that accountability may finally follow. The Larger Question The Akhlaq lynching case remains a painful reminder of how quickly rumours can turn into deadly violence. The court’s refusal to drop charges reopens a broader national conversation about mob justice, state responsibility, and the protection of constitutional values. As India continues to grapple with incidents of mob violence, the ruling stands as a test of whether the justice system can deliver closure—not just in this case, but in many others that still await resolution. FOR MORE BLOGS - beyondthepunchlines.com Read the full article

The Supreme Court's judicial misconduct cannot be justified as a matter of discretion, especially when dishonest or extraneous factors influence its decisions. #image_legalfunda.org A Supreme Court Question That Sparked Debate In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court openly questioned why disciplinary action should not be initiated if a judicial order is prima facie influenced by dishonest intent or extraneous factors. The observation, though cautious and contextual, has reignited a long-standing national debate: Can judges be held accountable for motivated decisions without undermining judicial independence? The Court’s remarks did not lay down a new law but clarified an existing constitutional principle — a wrong order is not the same as judicial misconduct, unless backed by credible evidence of improper motivation. Error of Judgment vs Judicial Misconduct Indian jurisprudence draws a sharp distinction between: - Judicial error, which is corrected through appeals and revisions - Judicial misconduct, which involves corruption, bias, malice, or external influence The Supreme Court has consistently held that no judge can claim to have never passed an incorrect order. Law involves interpretation, discretion, and subjective reasoning — all of which are fallible. Treating every incorrect decision as misconduct would paralyse the judiciary and expose judges to constant pressure. When Does a Wrong Order Become Actionable? The latest Supreme Court observations underline that disciplinary action may be justified only when there is material evidence suggesting that the order was: - Influenced by corruption or personal gain - Based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations - Motivated by malice, prejudice, or political pressure - Passed in wilful disregard of settled law for non-judicial reasons Mere suspicion, public outrage, or media criticism is not enough. The Court stressed that clear, cogent, and demonstrable material must exist to cross the threshold from error to misconduct. Why the Threshold Is Intentionally High Judicial Independence Comes First The Constitution protects judges from arbitrary punishment to ensure fearless decision-making. If disciplinary action became routine for overturned orders, judges might start deciding cases defensively rather than impartially. Appeals Are the Primary Safeguard India’s judicial system is structured on multiple appellate layers. An incorrect or perverse order is meant to be corrected by a higher court — not punished administratively. Preventing Abuse of Accountability Mechanisms Lowering the bar for disciplinary action could allow governments or powerful litigants to harass judges for inconvenient rulings, weakening the rule of law. Existing Accountability Mechanisms Despite the high bar, judges are not beyond scrutiny: Supreme Court's judicial misconduct - High Courts exercise administrative control over subordinate judiciary - Repeated adverse orders may result in adverse service remarks - Career progression, postings, and promotions can be affected - In serious cases, departmental inquiries can be initiated with due process For High Court and Supreme Court judges, removal is possible only through impeachment by Parliament, a deliberately rigorous process requiring proof of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” Supreme Court's judicial misconduct: The Supreme Court’s Latest Message The Supreme Court's recent judicial misconduct remarks serve as a warning — not a witch hunt. They signal that judicial independence is not a shield for dishonesty, and that where credible evidence of extraneous influence exists, accountability mechanisms must not remain dormant. At the same time, the Court reaffirmed that disciplinary action cannot become a substitute for appellate correction, nor can it be triggered merely because a judgment is unpopular or legally flawed. A Fragile Balance Between Power and Trust The judiciary derives its authority not from force, but from public trust. That trust depends on two equally vital principles: - Judges must be independent enough to decide fearlessly - Judges must be accountable enough to prevent abuse of power The Supreme Court’s latest observations attempt to walk this tightrope — reinforcing that while honest mistakes are inevitable, dishonest justice is unacceptable. Conclusion: Supreme Court's judicial misconduct Disciplining judges for motivated or extraneous decisions is constitutionally possible — but only with solid proof. The Supreme Court's judicial misconduct stance makes one thing clear: judicial accountability cannot come at the cost of judicial independence, and judicial independence cannot become a cover for misconduct. FOR MORE BLOGS - beyondthepunchlines.com Read the full article

▶️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zenstudyz

📌 Perfect for GS2: Polity, GS4: Case studies & ethics, and Essay.