Who Waches The Judges?
$ 75
Description
Who Watches the Judges? Democracy, Accountability, and the Crisis of Judicial Power A Sacred Cow in Robes? In every constitutional democracy, judges are hailed as the sentinels of justice, the priests of constitutionalism, and the last hope of the oppressed. Their words are treated as scripture. Their silence, often louder than thunder. But behind the marbled walls of judicial sanctity lies a simple question—who holds them accountable? Unlike politicians, who are dismissed at the ballot box, or bureaucrats, who face administrative discipline, judges operate in an enchanted realm: one where power is vast, but responsibility is vague. A democracy may burn, but the robe remains untouched. In the name of judicial independence, a new creature has emerged: judicial untouchability. The myth? That judges are above ordinary failings. The truth? They are not even above criticism. The “Independence” Illusion: Autonomy or Autocracy? The judicial branch was never meant to be an unaccountable island. It was supposed to be insulated, not isolated. But over time, especially in India, judicial independence has morphed into a rhetorical weapon to reject transparency, resist reform, and repel questions. Enter the collegium system: a unique Indian invention where judges appoint judges, evaluate themselves, and are rarely held accountable by any external mechanism. It arose through a trilogy of Supreme Court decisions (First Judges Case, Second Judges Case, Third Judges Case) with no constitutional text to support it—just self-authored judgments cloaked in noble intentions. But let’s not romanticize. The collegium operates more like a dinner club than a constitutional mechanism. No minutes are published. No interviews are held. No criteria disclosed. And when the executive dared to create a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) with parliamentary support, the Supreme Court swiftly struck it down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Ass’n v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1, declaring it a threat to judicial independence.