The most fundamental tenet of democracy is that those who rule over us must also be accountable to us. Currently there are at least two countries where the people can vote to arbitrarily remove judges, but surprisingly most democracies grant significant lawmaking and other power to members of the judiciary who not only are not elected but also cannot be removed unless they are involved in serious misbehaviour that brings discredit to their office. In Victoria’s reign, one would be hard pressed to name any judge who has been removed from the bench against his or her will. As Sir Harry Gibbs said when he was Chief Justice of the Australian High Court:
It is certainly not democratic that decisions on matters of social and economic policy should be made by unelected judges who are not accountable for their decisions except to their own consciences.
Against this background, an attempt is made under this chapter to discuss and examine the image of the judiciary and its historical account in India.
Image of the Judiciary
An efficient, independent and impartial Judiciary is the very backbone of our democracy. Judiciary according to the Indian concept is not a citadel of bricks and mortar, but it is a temple of Justice and a seat of the Divinity. It should, therefore, be as perfect as it can and as ideal as it is humanly possible. This is the reason why the Indian Judiciary is held in the very high esteem of culture and tradition in all the developing as well as the developed countries of the world.
Indeed, every judicial system consists of two components – first a framework provided by the law and secondly the judges who work within the system. The status and image of a system usually depend, in a substantial measure, on devotion, truthfulness, fairness and effectiveness of the men who belong to and operate the whole system. It should be noted that the Judicial system, even if it is perfectly structured, may yet not be an effective-justice-delivery system, if the persons working as Judicial Officers, discharging Judicial functions, do not have the requisite operational skill or are not enthused to deliver robust substantial Justice. Thus the image of the Judiciary depends more on the persons who administer the laws than on the law they administer.
For the above reason, the society and the law demands a very high standard of conduct, ethics, temper, courtesy, humility, integrity and fairness towards the members of the Judiciary, because they are the trendsetter of the values in society. They are worshipped, honoured and looked as an ideal of the social norms. With a view to give the clear picture of and expectations from the Judiciary the discussion on the point is proposed to be carried on under the following heads:
(a) Seat of High Tradition:
Judges hold a unique position in the life of the community. The seat which judges hold is not a seat of simple dispute resolution but it is a seat of Justice, which owe a great sense of duty and high traditions. The high esteem in which Judges are held is not based on a codified law or a set of principles laid down in textbooks. It is rather based on a reputation, a prestige built by tradition gradually and slowly. It is not the work of one Judge or of tradition built in one day. The edifice on which this sound and solid construction have been developed is an integration of honesty, integrity, character, fairness and impartiality. It has a matchless record in this aspect. The history indicates that in primitive society also, the law seems to have insisted upon the Judge and maintaining decorum and adherence to the code of Judicial conduct requisite for keeping the administration of justice unsullied.
To quote Kautilya:
“When a judge threatens, browbeats, sends out or unjustly silences any one of the disputants in his court, he first all, be punished with the first embracement, if he defames any of them, punishment shall be double”.
Centuries ago, the great Indian Jurist Sukra said in his NITI, that the King should decide cause according to shastras and added –
“where the King cannot personally attend to the administration of justice, he should appoint Brahamanas, who are versed in the Vedas, self-controlled, high born, impartial, unagitated and calm, who fear next life, are religious minded, active and devoid of anger”.
Manu too observed:
“Let the Judge observe the eternal law of Justice and decide all cases of disputes among men justly, that is without partiality. Where justice having been wounded by injustice approaches the court and no one extracts the dart, shot by injustice, from the wound, all the judges who constitute the bench shall be considered as wounded. Either a just and virtuous man should not enter a court or justice, or when he does enter it, should invariably speak the truth. He who looks on injustice perpetrated before his very eyes and still remains mute or says what is false or unjust is the greatest sinner. Where Justice is destroyed by injustice and truth by untruth under the very nose of the judges whilst they simple look on, all the judges in the court are as if dead, not one of them is alive”.
Thus, the judges should be conversant with actions, character and attributes of people, impartial to both enemies and friend, to be truthful and know the high traditions of this great Institution. That is why the holder of a judicial office is not permitted to deviate from these virtues even in his dream. The Judiciary itself is of the view that, the purity, dignity and high standard of tradition of this great institution should be maintained at any cost by its own members. In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, the Supreme Court of India observed that the Judges must be circumspect and self-disciplined in the discharge of their judicial function. It needed no emphasis to say that all actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary. Eternal vigilance by the Judge to guard against any such latent danger is, therefore, necessary lest we suffer from self-inflicted mortal wounds.
(b) Seat of Great Respect and Dignity
The seats of Judges enjoy the great respect and dignity in comparison with any other services on this earth. About the high seat of Judges Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, in first foundation training programme has rightly said that the –
“Dispensation of Justice is an attribute of God. Blessed are those on when that Godly assigned has be fallen. Still blessed are those who acquit themselves of such assignment with pride, dignity and honour. Even God, who has created the human being, does not sit in judgment over his deeds until the human’s death, whence only he determines whether he deserves to be sent to hell or heaven. You have been given the authority to sit in judgment over the deeds of a man in his life time. Your pen has power to grant the freedom of living or the sentence of death to an accused. You can take away his liberty for a number of days, months or years (subject to the limitations of law) Your mighty pen can turn riches into rags and a pauper into a millionaire. The more power you have the more humility, rationality and balance must be among your possessions”
Likewise a famous Moughal emperor Muhammad Bin Tuglak is said to have instructed the Quadi not to rise when the Sultan entered the court. He is said to enter the Court in cases against him, without arm and salute the Judge with great respect.
The above instances clearly indicate that the judiciary holds a respectable and dignified status in the society. However, the gravity and dignity of this great institution does not depend upon its power as it does not have it. To quote Mr. Justice Frankfurter ‘the Judiciary has neither the purse not the sword’. The Judiciary has only its moral authority. So it is not the power of contempt of the court which enforces the order of Judiciary, rather it is the moral authority and public confidence, which makes the order of judiciary enforceable.
Therefore, it is essential for the members of the Judiciary to maintain the highest standards of integrity and rectitude and function with impartiality to maintain its respectable and dignified status in the society. The Judges should always remember that there is yet another Judge who is the Judge of Judges. The remains confined within the precincts of the temple and carry home every day the weight of his good deeds he had done and also the burden of his sins he had knowingly or unknowingly committed.
The foregoing discussion reveals that the Judiciary as a guardian of the constitutional goal and protector of our interest and rights enjoy the great respect and highly dignified status in the society. Like the common member of the society and legal profession, the member of the Judiciary is also expected to maintain such dignity of the Judiciary, because if the Judges become too inhuman, loose their temper or do anything against the dignity of their own seat, then the impersonal concept of the seat of Justice is offended against, even by its occupant in bringing into disrepute the administration of Justice and in interrupting an even, unfitted and clean flow of the stream of justice.
(c) Life of Judges and Expectations:
Man is basically a social being and is called a social animal and has to live in society. As the great philosopher Aristotle used to say that we are basically gregarious creatures, we like to mix with each other so it is natural among human being to socialize and mix. But it has certain demerits too. Too much socialization is not expected of Judge. The delicate nature of a Judge’s duties requires certain degree of aloofness to be maintained by the Judges, be they members of Higher Judiciary or the Lower Judiciary. Chief Justice of Canada, Bora Laskin very aptly remarked: “when you become a Judge, you loose half of your freedom and when you become a Chief Justice you almost loose the other half”. That is the reason why Justice Holmes firmly refused to accompany Owen Wister to a bar for a drink, after his appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. He said “I do not somehow cotton to the motion of our Judge hobgoblin in hotel bars and Saloons”.
It depicts that, a Judge has no personal and social life. It is said that the life of a Judge is like a Hindu widow. The axioms may be erring on side of extremity as the Judges are not superman but simply human beings, but one thing is certain that the members who adore this office must command respect from society. This needs not only talent but also restraint. As Sir Winston Churchill, the great statesman observed, “A form of life and conduct for more severe by a restricted than that of an ordinary man is required from the Judges and though unwritten has been most strictly observed. They are at once privileged and restricted”.
Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that, the seat of Judges demands the highest quality of conduct, learning, dignity and character. A form of life, conduct for more severe and restricted than that of any other persons on the earth. The law and society expect from the holder of the high seat of justice to maintain high conduct, as a rule, a tradition of isolation and aloofness. That’s why society expects from Judges to hold a bundle of virtues.
The foregoing discussion reveals that society, as well as the nature of service rendered by Judges to the mankind, has very high expectations from the Judiciary. But, everything is not right with the functioning of the Courts. Occasionally expectations get frustrated when bad news spread about the conduct of some judges. Such incidence may be few, but they are enough to demolish the image of the high tradition of the judicial functioning.
However, in India, the history shows that the judiciary was acknowledged as the ‘least corruptible’ of all departments of the Indian Government. “It is a matter of pride and satisfaction that the Indian Judiciary enjoys credibility far greater as enjoyed by the other two wings of the State”. That was what Chief Justice (Dr.) A.S. Anand speaking on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee celebration of the Supreme Court in January 2000 expressed, but a year later this self-satisfaction was shocked, when Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha, publically lamented that “Eighty percent of Judges in the country are honest and incorruptible and the smaller percentage was bringing the entire Judiciary into collapse”. Now corruption a term which includes in the large sense nepotism and favouritism is becoming more prevalent in the subordinate judiciary and to some extent in the higher judiciary too.
Ethics of Judges
Over the past few years, the judiciary has enjoyed a substantial freedom and has been least accountable to any Institution. Out of the three wings of the state, the judiciary is the most independent and least accountable. In the era of judicial activism or dynamism where it has assumed extraordinary dimensions, it often encroaches upon the function of the executive or the legislature with nobody or institution to oversee its activities, various judicial pronouncements and statutory compilations have strengthened the stone wailed functioning of the judiciary securing the independence of the judiciary. The clandestine use of power gives judiciary substantial autonomy and under such circumstances, the judges tend towards corrupt practices and often enter into the domain of misbehaviour or do such activities as are beyond their legally permissible limits.
Justice Venkataramayya of Supreme Court on retirement observed “Judges should resist temptations. They should not be seen with gamblers, punters and economic offenders; what will be a judges image if he is found with such person”. He further said, “A single dishonest judge not only dishonours himself and disgrace his office but jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system”. Likewise, former chief justice of the Supreme Court E.S. Venkataramaiah bemoaned “judiciary in India has deteriorated in standards because some of the Judges are willing to be influenced by lavish parties and whisky bottles”. Thus he condemned the habitual “dine and wine judges.” The Dinesh Goswami committee on Judicial reform and other bodies have stressed the need for effective measures to deal with misbehaviour of judge have also suggested various way and means to check the growing evil. There is an urgent need for punitive corrective in the superior judiciary.
Article 121 of the Indian Constitution enacts that no discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect of the conduct of judges of Supreme Court or of a High court in discharge of his duties. This provision amounts to an absolute constitutional prohibition against any discussion in Parliament in respect of the judicial conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. If a judge in the discharge of his duties commits contempt of the House, the only step that can be taken against him is prescribed by article 124. A judge of Supreme Court or of a High Court may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President. A judge of Supreme Court or of a High court can also be removed from his office in accordance with the procedure laid down in Constitution. A judge of Supreme Court or of a High Court can be removed by an order of the President on the ground of proved ‘misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’.
In Britain, judges hold office during good behaviour and can be removed only on an address from both the House of parliament. In United State America, a Supreme Court judge holds office for life and is removed only by the process of impeachment in case of treason, bribery or other crimes and misdemeanours.
The word misbehaviour or “incapacity” has neither be defined nor clarified in the constitution. The complaint about misbehaviour or incapacity against a judge has to be probed under judges (inquiry) Act, 1968.The word ‘misbehaviour’ used in Art.124 (4), “is a vague and elastic word and embraces with its sweep different facets of conducting as opposed to good conduct”. Literally, ‘misconduct’ means wrong conduct or improper conduct. Guarantee of tenure of a judge and its protection by the Constitution does not mean giving sanctuary for corruption grave misbehaviour. But at the same time, every action or omission by a judge in the performance of his duties which may not be a good conduct necessarily, may not be regarded ‘misbehaviour’ for purposes of Art.124(4) indictable by impeachment. Error in judgement, however gross, cannot amount to misbehaviour.
(a) Code of Conduct for the Judges:
In order to make a judicial decision fair, without any objective and without any bias, and for proper implementation of this concept of judicial accountability a Judge should follow certain code of ethics. The code of conduct which should guide a Judge in execution of the judicial functions may be summarized as follows:-
(i) Judicial decision to be honest: – It is absolutely essential that the Judge’s life is full of public confidence in their role in the society, the judicial decision is to be honest and fair. No judicial decision is honest unless it is decided in response to an honest opinion formed in the matrix of the judge’s proficient of law and fact. However, the perception of an individual judge may be wrong. But a wrong decision honestly made does not make that decision dishonest. A decision becomes dishonest if not decided on judicial conviction of fairness, honesty and neutrality. Judicial decisions can be tainted when such decision is based on conviction which has its origin to any external and irrelevant stimuli, such as, friendship with a lawyer, acquaintance of the Judge with the party to the litigation, obliging someone whom the judge knows who might have intervened in the decision making, receipt of gratification etc. In order to be a judge on whom public can repose confidence, he must be true to the judicial oath and must not allow anyone to interfere with that.
(ii) No man can be a judge in his own case: – The basic code of ethics is the principle that no man can be judge in his own case. This principle does not confine merely to that case where the Judge is an actual party to a case, but also applies to a case in which he has interest. According to clause3(2) (e) and 3(2) (i) No judge shall hear and decide a matter in which a member of his family, or a close relative or a friend is concerned; and No judge shall hear and decide a matter in which a company or society or trust in which he holds or any member of his family holds shares or interest, unless he has disclosed his such holding or interest, and no objection to his hearing and deciding the matter is raised; respectively.
A Judge should not adjudicate in a case if he has got interest therein. Judges do require a degree of detachment and objectivity in judicial dispensation. They being duty bound by the oath of office taken by them in adjudicating the disputes brought before the court in accordance therewith, Judges must remain impartial, should be known by all people to be impartial. This is made clear by the Supreme Court.
(iii) Judges must not fear to administer justice: – “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum” that is “let justice be done though the heavens fall” should be followed as a motto by a Judge. Every unjust decision is reproach to the law of the Judge who administers it. A judge should not allow either reason of the Judge who administers it. A Judge should not allow either reasons of State or political consequences; however, formidable they might be, to influence his decision. He should guard against intimidation of powerful outside interests, which often threatened the impartial administration of justice and keep him 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.
(iv) Equal Opportunity: – Parties to the dispute be treated equally and in accordance with the principles of law and equity. A judge does not belong to any person or section or division or group. He is the judge of all people. According to clause3 (2) (n), “No judge shall have bias in his judicial work or judgements on basis of religion or race or caste or sex or place of birth.”
In the courts of law there cannot be double standard-one for the highly and another for the rest. A Judge should not have any concern with personalities who are parties to the case but only with merits. He must treat the parties to the dispute equally, giving them an equal opportunity during the trial. The Supreme Court said in the celebrated case “No man’s right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views”. In classical language of metaphor, the God of Justice sits on a golden throne, but at his feet sit two lions-‘law and equity’. A Judge will fail to discharge his duty if he disregards their presence and participation
(v) Maintenance of distance from relatives, parties to the dispute and their lawyers: – Since judging is not a profession but a way of life, the judge must distance himself from the parties to the dispute and their lawyers during the conduct of the trial. According to clause3 (2) (b), 3(2) (c) and 3(2) (d) No judge shall have close association with individual members of the Bar, particularly with those who practice in the same court in which he is a judge; No judge shall permit any member of his family (including spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law or any other close relative), who is a member of the Bar, to appear before him or associated in any manner with a cause to be dealt with by him; No judge shall permit any member of his family, who is a member of the Bar, to use the residence in which the judge actually resides or use other facilities provided to the judge, for professional work of such manner; respectively.
One can notice now a days the growth of a new caste in legal profession who thrive not by intellectual or professional capabilities but by utilizing their close connection with the judges. The growth of this suspicious trend can be checked if practicing lawyers and sitting judges avoid meeting frequently in private. Persons who occupy high public offices must take care to see that those who claim to be close to they are not allowed to exploit that closeness, alleged or real.
(vi) Too much of activity and participation in social functions be avoided:-It is often said that as a result of a very considerable amount of ordinary social activity, a Judge may become identified with people points of view, and litigants may think they may not get fair trial. To repel that feeling, a Judge should avoid too much of social activity. Again, Judges should be very selective in attending social functions. According to clause3 (2) (a) No judge shall contest the election to any office of a club, society or other association or hold such elective office except in a society or association connected with law or any court. 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.
(vii) Media Publicity to be avoided:-As far as possible a Judge should keep off the media. He should refrain from expressing his views in media on matters either pending before him or likely to appear for judicial consideration. According to clause3 (2) (b), 3(2) (c) No judge shall give interview, to the media in relation to of his judgement delivered, or order made, or direction issued, by him, in any case adjudicated by him; judge shall accept gifts or hospitality except from his relative. Else he may be accused of prejudging the issue and his neutrality may be questioned thereby.
(viii) Need of restraint not to be overlooked
Socrates said, four things belong to a Judge; to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially. In the matter of making disparaging remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes into consideration before a court of law, a Judge should consider: (a) whether the concerned party or authority is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on their conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.
Judicial pronouncement, it may be noted, should be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. A Judge should have the ability to recognize that he is not infallible and any party may be unjustified and if so, it may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.
(ix) Judges not yield to procrastination tactic of the lawyer: It is the duty of the Judge to see that the lawyer does not intentionally delay the proceedings of the court by seeking repeated adjournments. If the Judge or the Magistrate finds that an advocate is unnecessarily taking procrastinate tactics to delay the proceedings before the Judge, it is the duty of the Judge to take proper steps so that the concerned advocate is not encouraged to use such procrastinate tactics and to delay the trial.
(b) Conduct of Higher Judiciary:
Here some ethical guideline is pointed which should be adopted by court especially by higher judiciary:
- A judge shall not contest election to clubs, societies or other associations.
- A judge shall not hold elective office except in a society connected with the law.
- A judge must avoid associating with individual members of the bar, especially those who practise in the same court.
- A judge shall not permit any member of his family to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a case to be dealt by him.
- He shall not allow a family member who practices to stay in the same residence.
- He shall strive for a degree of aloofness keeping with the dignity of the office.
- He shall not enter into public debate or express views on political issues or air views on matters which are pending before the judiciary.
- He shall not speak to the media. The judgments speak for themselves.
- He shall not accept gifts or cordiality except from family members and close friends.
- He shall not play or speculate in the stock markets.
- He shall not seek or accept contributions or be associated with fund-raising.
- He shall always be under public gaze, and hence there should be no act of omission.
- He shall not hear or decide matters where he has financial interests, unless disclosed beforehand.
- He shall not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business either individually or along with other persons.
- He shall declare his assets as well as those of other family members.
It depicts from the above discussion that judges are accountable towards society like a general people of countries as well as a guardian of the constitution. Members of the judicial institution must be abiding by the code of conduct made for them.
III. Position in the Other Country
(a) United State of America
The American Bar Association formulated its Canons of Judicial Ethics for the first time in 1924. However, these canons were intended more as guidelines than statutory restrictions and therefore their applicability was limited as they did not address complex ethical issues. Consequently, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct was introduced by the ABA in 1972 to meet these challenges. This Code applies to all officers of the judicial system and non-lawyer judges such as town justices and justices of the peace with the exception of part-time judges, judges pro tempore, and retired judges. The ABA undertook a revision of the 1972 Code taking societal changes into account and the new Model Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 7, 1990. Since its 1990 adoption, the Model Code has been amended five times: on August 6, 1997; August 10, 1999; August 12, 2003, February 12, 2007and August 10, 2010. The Code of Judicial Conduct is intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct consists of four Canons, numbered Rules under each Canon, and Comments that generally follow and explain each Rule. Scope and Terminology sections provide additional guidance in interpreting and applying the Code. An Application section establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge or judicial candidate. But here it is neither possible nor relevant to explain all specific rules set forth in Sections under each Canon, therefore, it deals with only canons in brief rather principle mentioned under it.
- A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
- A judge shall perform the duties of the judicial office impartiality, competently and diligently.
- A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
- A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.
The Canadian Judicial Council which consists of all the chief justices and associate chief justices in Canada was instrumental in the creation of the Canadian Judicial ethical Principles in 1971 to deal with the issue of discipline and education of judges. Interestingly, after extensive debate and consideration including inputs from the Bertha Wilson Committee and the Working Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council, the Judicial Council decided against an elaborate code of ethics based on the American model and in its place adopted the Ethical Principles in 1998. These principles draw inspiration from the Magna Carta which set out that judges well-versed in the law be appointed and from the Act of Settlement, of 1701 that prohibited the arbitrary removal of judges by the crown; thus paving the way for the establishment of an independent judiciary.
The Canadian Judicial Council’s “Ethical Principles for Judges” states in its foreword “The ability of Canada’s legal system to function effectively and to deliver the kind of justice that Canadians need and deserve depends in large part on the ethical standards of our judge. The adoption of a widely accepted ethical frame of reference helps the Council fulfil its responsibilities and ensures that judges and the public alike are aware of the principles by which judges should be guided in their personal and professional lives.” The Canadian judicial council has developed five core principles namely, which may run into several pages but here in brief which are as follows:
- Judicial Independence – An independent judiciary is indispensable to impartial justice under law. Judges should, therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.
- Integrity – Judges should strive to conduct themselves with integrity so as to sustain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary. 
- Diligence – Judges should be diligent in the performance of their judicial duties.
- Equality – Judges should conduct themselves and proceedings before them so as to assure equality according to law.
- Impartiality – Judges must be and should appear to be impartial with respect to their decisions and decision making.
The Australian ‘Guide to Judicial conduct’ draws heavily from the Canadian Ethical Judicial Principles as well as from the writings of Justice J. B. Thomas of Australia and Prof. Wood of the University of Melbourne. The Australian guide aspires for high standards of conduct for the community to have confidence in its judiciary. It provides members of the judiciary with practical guidance about conduct expected of them as holders of judicial office and also takes into account the changes that have occurred in community standards over the years. It assumes a high level of common understanding on the part of judges of basic principles of judicial conduct. It also addressed issues upon which there is a greater likelihood of uncertainty.
The Australian principles applicable to judicial conduct have three main objectives:
- To uphold public confidence in the administration of justice;
- To enhance public respect for the institution of the judiciary; and
- To protect the reputation of individual judicial officers and of the judiciary.
Any course of conduct that has the potential to put these objectives at risk must, therefore, be very carefully considered and, as far as possible, avoided.
There are three basic principles against which judicial conduct should be tested to ensure compliance with the stated objectives. These are:
- Judicial independence; and
- Integrity and personal behaviour.
These objectives and principles provide a guide to conduct by a judge in private life and in the discharge of the judge’s functions. If conduct by a judge is likely to affect adversely the ability of a judge to comply with these principles, that conduct is likely to be inappropriate.
The Australian Guide rests on the premise that a judge is primarily accountable to the law which he or she must administer in accordance with the terms of the judicial oath. It also asserts that judges subject to judicial restraints must engage themselves with the community. It asserts that “a public perception of judges as remote from the community they serve has the potential to put at serious risk the public confidence in the judiciary that is the cornerstone of our democratic society” It was noted a majority of Australian judges subscribed to this view. However, the principles that the primary responsibility of deciding whether or not a particular activity or course of conduct is appropriate or not rests with the judge, though it does strongly recommend consultation with judges and preferably with the head of their jurisdiction.
Now it seems that accountability and conduct of judges play a crucial role in the fair judicial system. It is a mirror of dignified, disciplined of supreme institution likewise in other countries. There are so many conduct principles we have to adopt that for fair justice delivery system. The Holy Bhagavat Gita says that whatsoever great persons do in this life, other persons follow the suit, the standard set up by them are followed by other people.
Student, LL.M. ( Access to Justice)
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
 Japan and the United States
 Asim Pandiya, “How is a Judge expected to conduct himself in Temple of Justice” A.I.R. 2001 (Jour-sect) 154-155
 Anirudh Prasad, Principles of the Ethics of Legal Profession in India, University Book Pvt Ltd, 2nd ed. 2006, p. 25.
 Manu, VIII 3-8, 12 and 19.
 (1998) 1 SCC 1
 Conducted by Judicial Academy, Delhi at 2.07.2006
 Visit http:/www.Judicialaccademy.nic.in, access on March 25, 2013
 I.H. Qureshi, The Administration of Sultanate of Delhi, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1971, p. 163.
 Supra note 3, p. 5
 Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes: His Speeches, Essays, Letters and Judicial Opinion, Boston, Little Brown and Company, 1945, p. xxix.
 At New Delhi
 India Today, (Hindi ed.), Dec. 1-15, p. 12.
 Tanuj Hazari, “Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 : Judicial Accountability or A Toothless Tiger”, Pratiyogita Darpan, July 2007, p. 69
Satya Pradesh Malviya, “Removal of supreme court and high court judges”, Subhash Kashyap, The Citizen & Judicial Reform Under Indian Policy, New Delhi, Universal Law Publishing co. pvt., 2003 page.178
 V.N.Shukla, Constitution of India, Lucknow, Eastern Book Company, 2007, p.406
 Art.124 (4), (5) and Art. 217 of Constitution of India
 M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Nagpur, Wadhwa and Company, 2008, p. 199
 Supra note 15
 Supra note 18
 Supra note 18
 It is the Latin principle “Nemo debt esse judex in causa propria sua” which literally means that no man can be a judge in his own cause.
 Principle of Natural Justice
 See clause 3(2) The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
 Dr. D. C.Saxena v Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216
 See clause 3(2) The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
 Nand Lal Mishra v Kanhaiya Lal Misra AIR 1960 SC 882
 Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 ; (1990) 1 SCC 613
 See clause 3(2) The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
 Satyendra Narayan Singh v. Ram Nath Singh AIR 1984 SC 1755; (1984)4 SCC 21
 See clause 3(2) The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
 AIR 1977 SC 809
 See clause 3(2) The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
 State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nizam AIR 1964 SC 703
 Ibid, p.101
 State of Madhya Pradesh v Nandlal Jaiswal AIR 1987 SC 251 at page 287
 Murali Krishana, Milord Judge Yourself, Outlook, 20 December 1999, p 22 cited by Madhav godbole, Public Accountability and Transparency, orient logman private limited, New Delhi,2003, p 337
 Preamble of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct,(2011 edition)
Under the scope of American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct,(2011 edition)
 ‘Canon 1 of American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct’, (2011 edition)
 Ibid, canon- 2
 Ibid , canon- 3
 Supra note 40,canon -4
 Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principal of Judges, p.7
 Ibid p.13
 Ibid, p. 17
 Ibid p.23
 Ibid, p.27
 ‘Guide to judicial conduct’ Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated 2nd edition 2007
 Supra note 49, p.3
Disclaimer: Legal Bites is determined to include views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. This doesn’t mean we agree with everything we publish. But we do support their right to the freedom of speech. In case of content writers/editors/bloggers articles, the information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not reflect the views of Legal Bites. Legal Bites does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.