Dwivedi, and Joseph G. Jabbra list 8 types of accountability, namely: Political[ edit ] Political accountability is the accountability of the governmentcivil servants and politicians to the public and to legislative bodies such as a congress or a parliament. Hirschman makes substantial contributions to accountability theory, positing exit or voice as pivotal accountability mechanisms.
Unless the tiger is caged it will continue to wreak havoc. Judiciary in India being a democratic country is vested with the highest power by the people and is considered as strongest pillar of the democracy. Judiciary in India has been given Supreme powers by the Legislature which has lead to the non-accountability of the judiciary to anyone.
Judiciary in India enjoys judicial independence but this independence sometimes results in misuse of the powers and privileges Judicial accountability needs the Judges. Thus, the concept of Judicial Accountability is nowadays is in question.
All over the world various conferences and discussions are going on as to whether judiciary can be held accountable for actions.
The author of this paper would deal with the need for judicial accountability and meaning of ethics in context with the judges. The author would like to discuss the Judicial Standard and Accountability Bill, in detail and would like to suggest some measures along with conclusion which can be used to improve standard of judicial accountability in India.
The author would also deal with the fact as to how corruption is hampering the judicial system in India.
The author would throw some light on the status of judicial accountability in other nations of the world like USA, Australia etc. Why there is a need? Accountability is the sine qua non of democracy.
Associated with the higher cause of truth and justice, judiciary and the judges have been accorded a distinct position. It must be accountable either to the source of its origin, to the institution and more importantly to the people.
All wings of Government belong to the people, when the legislature and the executive both are accountable, the judiciary cannot remain unaccountable and absolute. No person, howsoever high is above the law similarly, no institution howsoever sanctified can claim to be unaccountable.
Ultimately, every institution is accountable to the people in every democratic polity like ours. Several countries in their constitutions have already provided for ensuring accountability of judiciary. This to prevent concentration of power in the hands of a single organ of the state especially in countries where judicial activism interferes with and invades into the domain of other organs.
But at the same time Judicial independence is a pre- requisite for every judge whose oath of office requires him to act without fear or favour, affection of ill- will and to uphold the constitution and laws of the country.
Thus, here arises a tension between Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India said: But I would say that for a judge too, ethics, not only constitutional morality but even ethical morality, should be the base.
The basic code of ethics is the principle that no man can be judge in his own cause; it means that a judge should not adjudicate those cases in which he has any kind of interest.
A judge should guard against intimidation of powerful outside interests, which often threatened the impartial administration of justice and keep himself free from application of crude pressure, which may result in manipulation of the law for political purposes at the behest of the government in power or anybody else.
A judge is the judge of all people.
He does not belong to any person or any section of society. A judge must follow the principle of equity in treating the parties to the dispute. The Supreme Court in Ram Pratap Sharma v Daya Nand issued a note of caution to the effect that it is proper for a Judge not to accept any invitation and hospitality of any business or commercial organization or of any political party or of any club or organization run or sectarian, communal or parochial lines.
Ill-conduct; improper or unlawful behavior.The forms of accountability and their limits are discussed below. The limits result from the acknowledged need in a democracy for an . We need to address the issue of corruption in Higher Judiciary first and we need to concentrate on the issue of judicial appointments.
The judge’s accountability is a serious issue as options are less to deal with the judge who is not accountable or who is corrupt. This entry about Judicial Accountability has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY ) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Judicial Accountability entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Judicial.
Judicial Discipline Reform. A study of judges' unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing; how to expose it and bring about judicial reform.
The Council is mandated under Part II of the Judges Act to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability while improving the quality of judicial service in all Superior Courts of Canada.
The Council’s primary role is to review complaints made by the public or the Attorney General about the conduct of federally appointed judges. The judicial accountability and transparency is the need of the hour to maintain the faith and trust in judiciary and their initiativeblog.com should endeavour to make them a reality in our home territories without hindering to the independence of the judiciary.