Judicial impartiality is a fundamental requirement of a fair and ethical legal system which ensures the administration of justice without bias, prejudice, or political influence. Judges must adjudicate cases strictly based on the rule of law, supported by proper evidence and legal principles, rather than personal beliefs or external pressures. "The judiciary has a responsibility to keep a vigilant watch over the functioning of democracy in accordance with the Constitution, in that sense it has to act as a sentinel on the qui vive,[1] making it imperative to uphold impartiality to maintain public confidence." Without ethical conduct from judges, the legal system risks losing its credibility and legitimacy which ultimately threatens the democracy.

Recently, comment made by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yadav who said that this country would function as per the wishes of the majority living in Hindustan. This communally charged statement by Justice Yadav violates his oath of office. The judiciary's ethical obligations extend beyond the courtroom, influencing their conduct in personal and professional life. It also keeps the trust of litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of judiciary. At the same time, even the slightest allegation of corruption, whether true or not—can damage the judiciary's reputation.

Judicial Impartiality as an Ethical Mandate

Professional ethics in the judiciary obtain their foundation from constitutional principles like Article 50 of the Indian Constitution[2], "which emphasizes the separation of the judiciary from the executive and reinforces the need for judicial independence." On May 7, 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life[3], which outlines ethical standards for judges. These principles mandate maintaining impartiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and upholding public perception of judicial integrity.

Judges must refrain from holding elective positions unrelated to law and ensure that their family members do not engage in legal practice before them. They should refrain from acceptance of gifts and maintains transparency in financial interests. Further reinforcing the ethical commitments which are required in judiciary, the oath taken by judges, as prescribed under Schedule 3, List 4 of the Indian Constitution, mentions their duty to remain impartial and uphold the rule of law. Judges swear to "…bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." [4]

Various judicial precedents and ethical guidelines, such as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) which enshrines the fundamental values that judges must uphold which includes integrity, independence, propriety, and impartiality. To address judicial misconduct, the Supreme Court also adopted the "In-House Procedure" in 1997 which established an internal mechanism for handling complaints against judges. In this, the Chief Justice of India is responsible for receiving complaints against Supreme Court judges and Chief Justices of High Courts in handling complaints against judges within their jurisdiction. It preserves the integrity of the judiciary by addressing ethical violations internally.[5]

The impact of judicial bias extends beyond individual cases and it affects the wider perception of justice in the minds of people. High-profile cases often serve as litmus tests for the judiciary's ethical standing, influencing public perception and trust.

Ethical Challenges in Maintaining Judicial Impartiality in India

Judicial impartiality is fundamental to the integrity of the legal system. As stated in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India[6], "that there can be no two opinions of Bar that an independent and impartial judiciary is the most essential characteristic of a free society."

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) states that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.[7] "Judges are expected to be free from bias and external influences to maintain public trust in the judiciary. It is closely linked to judicial independence, which is enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive."[8

One of the major challenges to judicial impartiality is the declining standard of legal education in India. Poor training and the theoretical nature of ethics courses result in law graduates who may not fully understand or uphold the ethical responsibilities of the profession.

"The collegium system, established after the Second Judges Case (1993), aims to ensure an impartial judiciary by reducing political influence in judicial appointments."[9] However, senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and Dushyant Dave have pointed out the lack of transparency and nepotism in the selection process in the YouTube show 'Dil se with Kapil Sibal' where they gave insight into the appointment procedure of judges of higher judiciary.

Another major concern is the increasing intersection between the judiciary and politics. The resignation of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay from the Calcutta High Court to join a political party raises questions about judicial impartiality. When judges enter into politics, it creates doubt on the impartiality of their previous rulings and undermines public trust. In the case, Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, it is stated that, "impartiality is the soul of judiciary; independence is the lifeblood of judiciary. Independence is the freedom from interference and pressures which provides the judicial atmosphere where one can work for the cause of justice."[10]

The issues of nepotism and favouritism in processes such as that of judicial appointment, transfer and promotion diminish the scope of judicial impartiality. "The importance to Article 50 as given by constitution makers to immunise the judiciary from any form of executive control or interference is emphasized by Granville Austin."[11] The judiciary's control over these processes was meant to protect it from executive interference, but now junior judges may align with senior judges' opinion in hopes of career progression, which creates suspicion towards the impartiality of the judgement.

Strengthening Judicial Impartiality Through Ethical Reforms

As previously discussed, ethics are the foundation of a fair judiciary and there is clear ethical code of conduct for judges. However, there are discrepancies in maintenance of these code of conducts due to various factors. So, there is a need for reforms which can help in overcoming these ethical challenges.

We need ethical reforms in process of appointment, promotion and transfer of judges to maintain the transparency and this can be achieved by establishing a transparent committee much before the process of appointment takes place in which there is a need to bring the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, two judges of the concerned High Court, the leaders of the Bar Association, Law Secretary and an unbiased intellectual individual from the state where appointments have to be made. This committee should be democratic in nature as suggested by Senior Adv. Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Mukul Rohtagi and Minakshi Arora in the youtube talk show 'Dil se with Kapil Sibal'.

Strict post-retirement rules are required as many retired judges are taking up positions in government which puts their past judgements into question. Cooling off period is required if a judge takes any post-retirement role to maintain judicial integrity.

There is a need to inculcate ethical training, enforcing accountability mechanisms and promoting the integrity within the judiciary to uphold the ethical mandate of judicial impartiality. Ethical training programs should be incorporated into Indian legal education for the functioning of unbiased and principled judiciary.

Conclusion:
It is quite clear that judicial impartiality is vital for the independence of the Indian Judiciary. The code of conduct, which are the rules that need to be followed by judges to uphold fairness, integrity, justice, and independence, reinforces the ethical mandate for impartiality. However, challenges such as political influence, personal bias, and weakened legal education hinder achieving this.

So greater ethical reforms are required, such as transparency in judicial appointments, accountability, and strict adherence to codes of conduct to safeguard the trust of people in the Indian judiciary and to uphold this legal system, which is on the verge of collapsing. By following ethical principles in judicial functioning, the judiciary can deliver justice without fear or favour and hence can uphold its independence.

The responsibility to safeguard judicial independence does not rest with the judiciary alone- it is a collective duty of society. If justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, what steps are we willing to take to ensure its integrity? The future of India's legal system depends on decisive action to uphold the credibility of its courts.

End Notes:

1. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441
2. The Constitution of India (1950), art. 50
3. Supreme Court of India, Restatement of Values in Judicial Life (1997)
4. The Constitution of India (1950), sch 3, List 4
5. Press Information Bureau, Code of Conduct for Judges (2024)
6. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441
7. Supreme Court of India, Restatement of Values in Judicial Life (1997), para (1)
8. The Constitution of India (1950), art. 50
9. Veepriya Ankit, 'Judicial Independence and the Collegium System in India' (2024) 5(3) International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews 5149-5157
10. Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 455
11. Granville Austin, 'The Conscience of the Constitution' in The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (OUP 1966)

Written By:

1. Jigeesha Vaishnav &
2. Kashish Mamnani