Ethical Implications of Judge Resigning for Politics

In March 2024, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, , left his position as a judge in the Calcutta High Court and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

1. His move from the judiciary to politics raises significant ethical concerns regarding judicial propriety (decorum/decency), impartiality, and integrity.
2. Mr. Gangopadhyay gained attention for various controversial actions:

• He criticized the West Bengal government and discussed the school bribery case in a TV interview.
• He had disagreements with lawyers and fellow judges.

3. Regarding Mr. Gangopadhyay's behavior, a bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha rightly stated that judges shouldn't give TV interviews on pending matters.

Judges in Politics In 1967, the former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Koka Subba Rao quit 3 months early to run for the Presidential elections. In 1983, Former Supreme Court Justice Baharul Islam resigned, 6 weeks before retirement, to contest Lok Sabha elections. In 2020, Retired Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, just 4 months after retirement. In 2004, a former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) became a Rajya Sabha member and Minister 3 years post-retirement. Retired Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and judges have also become Governors of States on occasions.

Constitutional Debate on Judges Conduct and Joining Politics:

Against Joining Politics	In Favor of Joining Politics
K.T. Shah, a member of the Constituent Assembly (CA), proposed a ban on judges of constitutional courts holding executive positions. The CA did not support this idea.	The Constituent Assembly (CA) opposed implementing external rules to regulate judges' behaviour, as it goes against judicial independence. India has never passed laws governing the conduct of judges of constitutional courts.

Constitutional Provisions on Judges' Powers and Privileges

1. Judicial privilege is necessary to keep judicial decision-making confidential.
2. The constitutional basis for this comes from the separation of powers and maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
3. Removal of Judges: Judges can be removed through impeachment by Parliament according to Article 217 and Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution.
4. Contempt Power: Article 215 states that High Courts have contempt power as courts of record, which judges can enforce.

Ethical Concerns Regarding a Judge's Resignation for Politics

1. Judicial Impartiality:

1. Judges should stay neutral and base decisions solely on facts and law, without personal biases or external pressures.
2. When a sitting judge joins a political party after controversies, it raises doubts about impartiality in cases involving politics.
3. This damages public trust in the judiciary's fairness.
4. Judges are required by Article 124 of the Indian Constitution to perform their duties without fear, favor, affection, or ill-will.

2. Judicial Independence:

1. Judicial independence is vital for upholding the rule of law and democracy.
2. Judges must be free from outside influence, including politics.
3. If a judge aligns with a political party post-resignation, it questions the independence of past decisions and raises concerns about political influence on the judiciary.

3. Conflict of Interest:

1. Judges should avoid conflicts of interest and maintain judicial integrity.
2. Involvement in politics after controversial rulings suggests potential conflicts of interest.

4. Erosion of Public Trust:

1. The judiciary relies on public trust and confidence to fulfil its role in society.
2. When judges get involved in political activities, it undermines the perception of judicial integrity and impartiality, leading to erosion of public trust in the entire judicial system.
3. In C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995, the SC stressed about judges possessing ‘sterling (excellent) character, impeccable (perfect) integrity, and upright behaviour’ to maintain the purity of justice.
4. In All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India, 1991, the Supreme Court highlighted society's expectations from judicial officers, which are compromised when judges engage in political activities.

5. Against the Principle of Checks & Balances:

1. The Constitution emphasizes checks and balances among its branches.
2. An independent judiciary oversees the actions of the executive and legislature.

6. Violation of Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002:

1. The Bangalore Principles stress maintaining public and professional confidence in judges' impartiality.
2. Political involvement, especially after making controversial statements during service, may violate these principles.
3. Judges entering politics, especially after controversial rulings, raise concerns about conflicts of interest.
4. Judges are expected to avoid such conflicts and uphold their integrity.

7. Issue of Post-Retirement Appointments:

1. Some retired judges have taken up government positions after retirement, blurring the line between the judiciary and the executive.
2. The Indian Constitution doesn't expressly stops judges from accepting post-retirement assignments, but there are suggestions for implementing a cooling-off period to reduce potential conflicts of interest.
3. Concerns Raised: Late Arun Jaitley, a former Union Minister, suggested that judgments made before retirement may be influenced by post-retirement opportunities.
4. Historical Perspective: The 14th Law Commission Report in 1958 highlighted concerns and recommended a system to ensure judges' financial security without compromising their independence.
5. Proposals for Cooling-Off Period: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) R. M. Lodha recommended a cooling-off period of at least 2 years.
   • Officials retiring from sensitive positions should be prohibited from accepting any other appointment for a certain period, typically two years.
6. Rationale Behind Cooling-Off Periods: These periods aim to break the link between previous roles and new appointments by introducing a significant time gap.
7. International Practices: In the USA, Supreme Court justices hold lifetime positions to prevent conflicts of interest.
   • In the UK, although there's no law preventing judges from taking post-retirement jobs, no judge has done so, indicating a different approach to the issue of post-retirement roles.Top of FormTop of Form

Must Check: Best IAS Coaching In Delhi