In a constitutional democracy like India, the judiciary is revered as the guardian of justice. Yet, beneath the towering presence of constitutional courts lies the real engine of the justice system—the lower judiciary. This includes district and subordinate courts, where the common citizen encounters the law. While much attention is given to the Supreme Court and High Courts, the credibility of the judicial system rests heavily on the fairness and integrity of the lower courts. However, allegations of corruption, delay, bias, and misconduct continue to plague this tier, eroding public confidence. Accountability in the lower judiciary is not a question of independence—it is a demand for transparency, efficiency, and ethical conduct at the ground level.
No One Is Above The Law – Not Even Judges: In every constitutional democracy, the rule of law forms the backbone of justice. It ensures that all citizens—regardless of power, position, or privilege—are equal in the eyes of the law. This principle is not symbolic; it is foundational. And it applies universally—even to those who interpret and enforce the law: the judiciary. Judges hold a sacred position in society. They interpret the Constitution, resolve disputes, protect rights, and check the excesses of other branches of government. Their independence is rightfully protected, but independence must never be misunderstood as immunity. The public reveres the judiciary because it expects fairness, integrity, and accountability. When courts insist that government officials, legislators, and police officers must operate within the boundaries of law, the same standards must naturally apply to judicial conduct. Judicial accountability is not a challenge to authority; it is a reaffirmation of justice. Indian Constitution does not place anyone beyond scrutiny. Article 14 promises equality before the law, not just for the governed, but for the governors as well. And while judges enjoy certain protections to ensure impartial decision-making, these protections should not become a veil behind which concerns are dismissed or public trust is ignored. This is especially important in the lower judiciary, where the people’s daily encounters with the legal system take place. For a common litigant, justice is not defined by constitutional benches but by what happens in a small courtroom in a town or district. When that experience is fair, accessible, and respectful, it builds faith. But when delays, bias, or opacity cloud the process, that faith is shaken. This is why there is a growing need for structured and transparent accountability mechanisms. These must be internal, professional, and respectful of judicial dignity, but also responsive to genuine concerns. When judges hold others to the highest standards, the judiciary too must exemplify those same standards. We must remember that the majesty of law lies not in robes, gavels, or elevated chairs—but in the unwavering commitment to fairness and truth. And truth does not fear scrutiny.
The Reality On The Ground: Over 75% of India’s pending cases are in the lower courts. This massive workload, combined with limited resources, puts extraordinary pressure on judicial officers. But resource constraints alone cannot justify judicial arrogance, unexplained adjournments, manipulative court staff.
Some real-world issues include:
• Deliberate adjournments to favour one party
• Insensitive handling of cases involving women, children, or the poor
• Delays in delivering reserved judgments
For a common litigant, even a biased magistrate can mean years of delayed or denied justice. But unlike High Court judges, lower judicial officers often operate without scrutiny and are rarely held publicly accountable unless caught in glaring misconduct.
Is The Lower Judiciary Accountable? Technically, yes. Judges in the lower judiciary are governed by state judicial services rules, and they function under the administrative control of the respective High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. But in practice internal inquiries are opaque, complaints are buried without follow-up, no public record of action taken is maintained and victims of judicial misconduct have no access to redress. Unlike higher judges, magistrates and district judges do not enjoy constitutional protection like impeachment. Yet, this does not translate into functional accountability. Transfers are sometimes used as punishment without addressing root causes. In extreme cases, officers quietly resign or retire without any disciplinary process.
“Neither judicial immunity can be absolute nor can misconduct be ignored in the name of independence. Real judicial reform starts in taluka courtrooms where citizens experience the justice system firsthand. It’s time to view accountability as a tool to strengthen the judiciary from the grassroots up. The rule of law reigns supreme, with no robe, title, or position above it—the essence of real justice.”
A Culture Of Silence, Fear: Many young lawyers, clerks, and even litigants hesitate to file complaints against lower court judges—even when there is clear misconduct—because they fear backlash. Lawyers worry about future bias, while parties fear prolonged harassment.This silence breeds a culture of untouchability at the grassroots judicial level, which contradicts the constitutional promise that “no one is above the law.”
Why Accountability Is Not A Threat: It is often argued that judicial independence must be protected, and lower judges must be insulated from public or political pressure. That is true.But accountability mechanisms are not about political control—they are about ethical clarity and procedural integrity. Judges must not be micromanaged—but they must answer for delays, conduct, behaviour, and fairness.In fact, clear accountability strengthens independence, because it builds public trust and protects judges from false allegations when there is a transparent review system. Suggested reforms for concrete change are mentioned below:-
1. Transparent Complaints Portal Under The High Court: Every High Court should be mandated to maintain a public-facing complaints portal for grievances against subordinate judges. It should ensure time-bound inquiry, Public update on whether action was taken and Protection for whistleblowers and complainants
2. Independent Vigilance Cells In Each District Court: Separate from the registry and court staff, vigilance cells can monitor patterns of misconduct such as Frequent adjournments, delay in judgments and complaints from lawyers or parties These cells should report directly to the High Court vigilance committee.
3. Publish Disciplinary Actions Annually: Even anonymised data on how many judges were warned, transferred, or investigated would improve transparency and public trust. This already exists in many public departments—there is no reason the judiciary should remain behind.
4. In-court Feedback Mechanism: After case disposal, parties should be given an option to submit feedback (confidentially) on judicial behaviour, treatment in court, and punctuality. This can help detect patterns of misconduct or abuse of power.
5. Make Judicial Ethics Training Mandatory: Subordinate judges need regular training on gender sensitivity, caste and class bias, courtroom behaviour
And mental health and stress management
6. Allow Limited Public Discourse On Lower Judiciary: Contempt of court laws must not be used to silence genuine complaints against trial court behaviour. Media, bar associations, and academics must have room for fair criticism and exposure.
Conclusion;Justice Cannot Be Selectively Accountable: The robe worn by a judicial officer—whether in a district court or the Supreme Court—represents the promise of impartiality, fairness, and integrity. But a robe is not a shield—it is a responsibility. Accountability in the lower judiciary is not about disrespecting the judge; it is about respecting the institution of juoffice If a Police Officer, University Professor, a school teacher, or a government officer can be questioned for inefficiency or misconduct, so too must a magistrate or civil judge be answerable when they betray their office. Neither judicial immunity can be absolute nor can misconduct be brushed under the carpet in the name of independence. Real judicial reform begins not in the apex court, but in the taluka courtrooms where ordinary citizens experience the justice system firsthand. It is time we stop treating accountability as a threat—and start treating it as a tool to strengthen the judiciary, from the grassroots up. In the end, the rule of law means just that—the law rules overall. No robe, no title and no position stands above it. And that is the essence of real justice.
(The author is a a scholar at School of Law University of Kashmir, Srinagar. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Syed Wajid Ul Zafar
[email protected]
