In a significant ruling emphasizing the importance of judicial independence, the Supreme Court of India has stated that disciplinary actions should not be initiated against judges for errors in judgment. The court underscored that a "fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary".
The Supreme Court's ruling came while addressing a case where a trial judge's services were terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for mistakenly granting bail to an accused individual. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan stated that the crucial factor is the judge's conduct, not whether the verdict was correct. The Supreme Court also noted concerns about frivolous complaints against judges, which can cause trial court judges to be overly cautious, especially in bail matters.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity for High Courts to intervene when legitimate allegations against a judge surface, aiming to "weed out black sheep sullying the fair name of the judiciary". However, the court also stressed the High Court's duty to protect judges from baseless or anonymous complaints.
The ruling highlights the challenging conditions under which trial court judges operate, including heavy workloads and significant pressure. The court recognized that judges must make decisions that will inevitably displease one party, potentially leading to disgruntled individuals making frivolous allegations. The Supreme Court cautioned that constantly probing judges based on motivated complaints would negatively impact the trial judiciary's functioning and hinder the fearless execution of their duties.
This verdict aligns with the understanding that judges, like all professionals, may make errors in judgment, and such errors should not automatically result in penalties. Judges are expected to be allowed to be wrong about the facts but not about the law. The higher courts are in place to correct the judgement of the lower court, which is a judicial power. The controlling court cannot initiate any action until it is proven that the wrong judgment delivered by the judge was mala fide.
The Supreme Court possesses the authority to review its own decisions. It can reevaluate any judgment or order it has previously made, as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can also invalidate parliamentary and governmental decisions if they violate fundamental features.
