The Indian judiciary has become the most powerful institution of the State within 50 years of the Constitution's drafting, which could not have predicted by Indian constitution designers. Judicial accountability plays a key role in ensuring the effective administration of justice, which is a core component of constitutional governance and the rule of law. Even though Indian constitutional jurisprudence has progressed substantially in accordance with international judicial standards, the country's legal system still lacks sufficient criteria for judicial accountability and a code of ethics.

The few instances against judges that have been recorded illustrate the weakness and inefficiency of the system, even though judges are generally suspected of engaging in unethical and corrupt behavior. The trend of cases not being reported is quite significant and complicated due to the Indian constitution's seemingly ineffective and unworkable system of checks and balances for judges. The study looks at the nation's judicial accountability system and pinpoints any legislative shortcomings.

The researcher contends that additional simplification of the Indian legal system is necessary to bring it into compliance with other nations' best practice. This research paper attempts to understand the notion of legal responsibility and express gratitude for it, analyzing its fundamental principles in a wider context. A responsible legal system includes effective regulatory policy in all national frameworks of law, community trust in the legal system, accessibility, effectiveness, and efficiency of the legal system, as well as valid assurances of legal sovereignty.

The collection of rules governing judicial responsibility imagined the necessary qualifications for competent, independent, and open magistrates as a traditional and predictable institution. According to recent judicial system research, evaluating the quality of a legal scheme should at least consider five factors related to the way the law is presented: accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, accessibility, and self-governance.

Research Hypothesis
In India, the idea of judicial accountability is still expanding, inclusive, and dynamic.

India's effective application of the law is hampered by the absence of a strong legislative framework for judicial accountability.

Judicial responsibility is not consistently implemented in India through a unified national framework.

Research Methodology
Every methodological and logical investigation starts with the research approach. Furthermore, the methodology primarily aids and directs the framework in identifying research methodologies, tools, procedures, and data gathering strategies for addressing research problems.

Moreover, the research methodology involves more than just representing the search strategy's goals; it also typically pertains to the study and looks at how people think through and deal with cautious strategies and systems. It not only supports research that evaluates the study's outcomes, but the entire study clearly mentions the study's methodology. The research work's technique is primarily doctrinal in nature.

The researcher's primary areas of interest have been doctrinal, analytical, and observational methods. Additionally, a variety of secondary sources, including books, journals, and other online resources, newspapers, electronic journals, etc. Furthermore, the most recent government reviews are drawn from newspapers, international treaties, and existing literature, forum discussions, etc.

Introduction
The term accountability refers to accepting responsibility for one's actions, whether they were taken to avoid punishment or for legitimate reasons, by an individual, organization, or nation. The concept of judicial accountability refers to the judges' belief that they ought to be held responsible for their actions.

This could be done in several ways, such as answering the public to gain support from voters during an election or to a political body such as the governor or legislature. Many nations have constitutions that include provisions about the responsibility and accountability of judges. This is done to prevent the accumulation of power in one place, particularly in nations where the judicial system's activism has infected the domain of other governing bodies.

The legal system's functionality relies on public acceptance and adherence to court decisions, ensuring fairness and impartiality of magistrates and judges, and avoiding weakening convictions. The judiciary has a remarkable role to play in articulating and enhancing constitutional values like equality, justice, and democratic principles. The complex relationship between sovereignty and liberty is a major global political issue today. A state that exercises its sovereignty has the fullest power to limit and impose restrictions on an individual's freedom. Constitutional principles and political philosophies have sought to strike a balance between these two extreme ends since the beginning of time.

Despite the ever-expanding political doctrines and policies of the State, civilized society has conceived, proposed, and accepted a variety of strategies to limit State power and ensure proper protection of individual freedoms. A method used by governments worldwide to organize and regularize sovereign power is the intra-organ test, which measures the control of one state organ by another.

The foundation of the intra organ theory of governmental authority is the judiciary's role as a vital organ of the state. According to this idea, the judiciary must punish the other branches of government for failing to uphold the individual's freedom, liberty, and fundamental rights. Individual liberty may be significantly distorted by sovereignty, which is unrestricted control over people and territory.

It needs a proper constitutional watchdog to prevent its functioning by nature. According to the constitution, the judiciary's duty is to uphold the rule of law in its broadest meaning and safeguard citizens from the concrete oppression of the state. Within the framework of the constitutional system, the judiciary has taken on great significance in the context of human rights jurisprudence and the rule of law.

Judicial Accountability
The concept of judicial responsibility is unclear. It is a developing notion, the exact details of which remain uncertain at this point. When judicial accountability is mentioned in the literature, it is typically not defined but rather attempted to be conceptualized. Mentioned by Hon. SC's ruling in the case of Sharma, R. P. and Others v. Nand, D. and Others1 that to prevent being influenced in any manner, a judge ought to decline invitations from any commercial, political, or business organizations. It is more appropriate to use caution in this situation.

Principles of judicial duty should include those that align with the role of magistrates about admitting impartiality and administering justice. The people seated in these administrative positions exercise their administrative power, and it is because of their exercise and operation of such powers that the legislature, executive branch, and judiciary, the three branches of democracy can operate without obstruction. The structure of the legislature creates complexity in its relationships between other organs, which affects the legal framework.

However, this complexity does not shield the judiciary from criticism. High standards of leadership and the open acceptance of legal alternatives are ensured by judicial responsibility2.

Frameworks or processes of responsibility contain significant elements that have the power to undermine or reinforce legal sovereignty as well as community confidence. It's critical to realize that there are variations in how judge accountability is articulated to differentiate various systems of responsibility. The way a judge utilizes their authority determines the responsibility of a judgement. Before the law and public morality, magistrates and judges must exercise their judicial authority with accountability. Judges in the legal system need to have their own structure, legal regulations, and procedures.

Judges are bound to follow the meeting's title at every level of the legal proceedings. Judges oversee upholding the general public's legal capacity in full view of the long-established norms and deciding all matters of all causes for the parties involved to hear. Each of these principles and frameworks ensures that judges will be held accountable to the law. According to Hon. Justice J.S. Verma stated that the test of credibility as a judge is to be committed to keeping his word; he should, therefore, reject any influence or seduction.

Self-governance is unquestionably a crucial component of a judge's job since a judiciary devoid of autonomy, skill, or reliability would not be able to provide any documentation at all. The adjudicator's duty is to the people who have the authority to make final decisions. As a result, maintaining rent certainty, which is the real source of the judiciary's solidarity, is essential.3

Need For Judicial Accountability
The person exercising "democratic republic" power must take responsibility for it in order to prevent any terrible occurrences within the democratic system. Judges, bureaucrats, and other others with authority ought to be held fully accountable in addition to politicians. The administration of justice by the courts is handled by the judicial system.

Although judges are respected for carrying out their duties, there are numerous instances where their rulings have left people frustrated with the legal system and have caused them to lose faith in it. People tend to take matters into their own hands to obtain justice. Since this is an undesirable circumstance, judicial accountability has been needed.

The judiciary should be independent for judges to follow their oath to act fearlessly, abstain from: bias, favoritism, or foster ill will while in court, and to defend the nation's laws and constitution.

Article 235 of the Indian Constitution states that one of the requirements for independence is accountability. The High Court can assert "control" over the lower judiciary and demand responsibility through this provision.

Challenges In Judicial Accountability
Lack of Transparency: The Indian legal system has come under criticism for lacking transparency, particularly when it comes to the appointment and disciplinary procedures. Inadequate public access to data hampers thorough examination. For instance,The judiciary has a long record of attempting to obtain exemptions from the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) for itself.

Delays in Disciplinary processes: The effectiveness of systems for accountability is impacted by the frequent delays in disciplinary processes against judges, The public's faith in the legal system may be damaged by this delay.

Limited Public Participation: Since the process is largely internal and does not involve active public participation, the public's ability to hold judges accountable is limited, Encouraging the public to voice concerns and take part in the process of accountability is essential.

Trends In The Legislation Pertaining To Judicial Accountability
Since the judiciary's founding, there has been a need for judicial accountability. It serves as the judiciary's check and balance. Nevertheless, the necessity of legislation governing judicial accountability has only recently come to light. Laws addressing different facets of judicial accountability have changed to reflect evolving circumstances.

The following is an overview of the different laws that the Parliament has proposed to make judicial accountability an established law.

Government of India Act, 1935:
This Act, which served as the foundation for the current Indian Constitution, not only defined High Courts but also outlined the process for dismissing a judge for "misbehavior or of infirmity of the mind or body."4 In a case involving any such judge for removal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the committee would investigate the subject.

The state governor would remove the judge from office based on the recommendation of the Judicial Committee. The High Court's Act of 1861 and Sections 4 and 105 of the Government of India Act of 1915 provided for the appointment of Indian High Court judges to their positions for as long as Her or His Majesty deemed fit, prior to the Government of India Act of 1935.

English law, in contrast, allowed judges to remain in office during good conduct5. This admirable conduct was limited to judicial services, but all government employees, including those in the Permanent Civil Services, were appointed by the Crown. A person holding office during good behaviour cannot be removed for any reason, whereas a person holding office during pleasure cannot be removed unless the Court of Justice finds misconduct that would warrant their removal. This is the main distinction between the two types of removals.

This system was altered by the Government of India Act, 1935, which attached the need of "good behavior" to judges' tenure. It also established clear guidelines for the nomination and removal of judges. Verifying the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary was the first action the government took to guarantee that there was a certain degree of accountability in the judiciary following the establishment of the High Courts. It also guaranteed the removal of judges who were unable to make decisions or manage court proceedings.

Subsequently, the Indian Constitution Drafting Committee incorporated comparable clauses that are currently contained in Articles 124 and 217 of the Indian Constitution. The Articles specify that the President of India may appoint judges after consulting with the Chief Justice of India, and that judges may be removed through an impeachment process before the Parliament if they are unable to carry out their judicial duties.

According to the process outlined in the Constitution, each House of Parliament must make an address backed by a majority of its members overall and by a majority of at least two-thirds of the house. The President receives the members of that House who are present and voting, after which he issues the order of removal of judge6. Under Clause (5), the Parliament is also able to control the process of looking into and proving a judge's misconduct or incompetence7.

Judges' inquiry act, 1968
To hold Supreme Court and High Court judges accountable for their conduct, the Judges Inquiry Act, the only piece of legislation still in effect today, was a unique idea in the Indian democracy. If it is determined that a judge is misbehaving or unable to serve in their current role, this Act will take effect. A resolution must receive the support of 50 votes in the Rajya Sabha or 100 votes in the Lok Sabha to be introduced in the Parliament8.


The grievance against the judge is given for investigation to a committee made up of one judge from each of the Supreme Court and High Court as well as a renowned jurist. The committee will then evaluate the complaint in its entirety after the motion is approved by the Speaker or the Chairman, depending on the situation. The Committee recommends the judge's impeachment according to Article 124 or 217, as appropriate, if it believes that the judge is unable to carry out his judicial duties.9

Judges' (inquiry) bill, 2005
The honesty of the judiciary was seriously questioned over time due to growing corruption and delays in justice, leading to calls for the replacement of the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. The Lawmakers' discussion of those issues led to the creation of the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005. The Bill was significantly different from its predecessor in that it established a Scrutiny Panel and changed the process for filing complaints.

The most notable aspect of the Bill was that it allowed any person to make a complaint against a judge, opening the floodgates. If any allegations made against the judge proved true, the National Judicial Council, which was also established by the act, would review the complaints and forward them to the Investigation or Inquiry Committee. A statutory power would establish the Council that the Central Government had been granted by the Parliament under the Judges Protection Act of 1985.

The other legislations include:
Judges (declaration of assets and liabilities) Bill, 2009

Judicial (standard and accountability) Bill, 2010

Ways to ensure Judicial accountability

In India, there are a number of ways to preserve judicial accountability:

• Through Writs:
  • Prohibition: It is an order that a higher court issues to a lower court or tribunal to stop the latter from encroaching on its territory or usurping territory that it does not already hold. Thus, the writ is issued in both cases where there is excess of jurisdiction and where there is absence of jurisdiction.
  • Certiorari: A higher court issues one to a subordinate court or tribunal in order to overturn the latter's decision in a particular instance. It is issued because of either an overabundance of jurisdiction, insufficient jurisdiction, or a legal error. In contrast to actions that are solely ministerial, the term "judicial acts" refers to the quasi-judicial functions that are performed by administrative entities, authorities, or individuals who are required to perform such functions. The decision of whether or not a body should operate in a judicial manner must be made in each case in view of the case's conditions.
• Impeachment Procedure: The Judges Enquiry Act of 1968 governs the process for impeaching a judge from the Supreme Court and high courts.
• In-house mechanism: The judiciary has a process in place to handle complaints made against judges. Senior judges and chief justices are involved in investigating allegations of misbehavior and implementing the proper disciplinary measures.
• Function of Higher Judiciary: The Supreme Court and other higher courts have a supervisory function in guaranteeing accountability. Historic rulings have been rendered to uphold the accountability and integrity of the legal system. Example: the 1993 Second Judge Case.

Steps Needed For Judicial Accountability

• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Draft and put in effect thorough legislation that defines the standards of behavior for judges, creates accountability procedures, and allows for the investigation and dismissal of judges when they engage in improper behavior.
• The National Judge Appointments Commission (NJAC): Should review and improve the judge appointment process to guarantee accountability and transparency. The judiciary, the administrative branch, and civil society can all be represented on the National Judicial Appointments Commission, guaranteeing an impartial and responsible selection procedure.
• Code of Conduct for Judges: Create and implement a thorough code of conduct for judges that explains professional behavior expectations, ethical standards, and sanctions for infractions. Aspects like impartiality, accountability, and conflicts of interest should all be covered by this code.
• Assessment of Judicial Performance: Provide a transparent and impartial system for assessing judges' performance. This may entail ongoing evaluations based on a range of criteria, including the standard and promptness of rulings, respect for the law, and behavior both on and off the bench.

Conclusion
Examining the patterns reveals that every branch of government bears an essential duty to guarantee that the court is free from corruption. The Legislature must make sure that the appropriate legal framework is in place to support the removal of judge's instances of misconduct, impose additional measures to curb unlawful behavior, require asset disclosures, and so forth.

The House of Commons must also follow Article 124's guidelines without showing any bias and remove a judge from the office when necessary. On the other hand, the Executive must continue to function independently in the appointment of judges. The Judiciary must never lose sight of its responsibility as a branch of the government.

It must, therefore, make reasoned announcements, adhere to precedents and legal procedure when making decisions, follow the appointment and transfer procedure in a transparent and independent manner, and, most importantly, uphold the standards of judicial conduct that are appropriate for its prestigious position in a democracy.

 Unquestionably, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 was needed to close the gap in the legal framework that aims to hold judges accountable for improper or deviant behavior as well as to establish an effective system that considers the different aspects of judicial accountability.

However, as previously mentioned, a more effective approach to addressing corruption in the judiciary would be a consistent, coordinated, and coordinated effort by all State organs. Nonetheless, it is imperative that these endeavors maintain the equilibrium between the judiciary's independence and accountability, which forms the foundation of the Indian Constitution.

Bibliography:
Books/journals/articles:

• Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J.N. Pandey
• International Journal of Governance and Public Policy Analysis (IJGPPA) 2020
• Constitution of India Bare Act