Supreme Court’s 1997 resolutions on judicial conduct and ethics – OPSC OAS Mains GS Paper II PYQ

📝Model Answer

Introduction

On 7 May 1997, the Supreme Court of India, in its Full Court meeting, adopted two significant resolutions to strengthen judicial accountability and ethics — the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" and a resolution establishing an "in-house procedure" for addressing judicial misconduct. These were framed as a self-regulatory mechanism by the judiciary, in the absence of a comprehensive statutory code governing judicial conduct.

Background and Purpose

1. Institutional introspection – The resolutions emerged from a period of concern over judicial accountability and the need to reaffirm public trust in the judiciary.
2. Restatement, not innovation – Described as a "restatement of the pre-existing and universally accepted norms, guidelines and conventions" of judicial life, rather than a new code.
3. Consultative drafting – A draft statement was circulated to all High Courts, and the final version was adopted after incorporating their suggestions.

Key Provisions of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life

1. Justice seen to be done – The foundational principle that "justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done"; judges’ conduct must reaffirm public faith in judicial impartiality.
2. Avoidance of eroding credibility – Any official or personal act of a judge that tends to destroy this perception must be avoided.
3. No elective offices – A judge should not contest elections to any office of a club, society, or association, except one connected with law.
4. Aloofness from the Bar – Judges must avoid close association with individual members of the Bar; family members who are advocates must not appear before them or use the judge’s residence for professional work.
5. Degree of aloofness – Judges must maintain a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of their office.
6. No adjudication involving family/friends – Must not hear or decide cases where a family member or close friend is involved.
7. No public political comment – Must refrain from publicly expressing views on political matters likely to arise for judicial determination.
8. Judgments to speak for themselves – Judges should let their judgments speak for themselves and avoid giving media interviews.
9. Restraint on gifts and hospitality – Should not accept gifts or hospitality except from close family or friends.
10. Restraint on financial dealings – Should not seek any financial benefit or favour connected to the judicial office unless clearly permissible.
11. Asset declaration – Judges should declare all assets in the form of real estate or investments to the Chief Justice, kept confidential initially (later evolved toward voluntary public disclosure).
12. Awareness of public scrutiny – Judges must be conscious of constant public scrutiny and avoid conduct unbecoming of the high office they hold.

The In-House Procedure Resolution

1. Resolved that an in-house mechanism should be devised by the Chief Justice of India to take remedial action against judges whose conduct violates the values outlined in the Restatement.
2. The Chief Justice of India is competent to receive complaints against Supreme Court judges and High Court Chief Justices; Chief Justices of High Courts handle complaints against their own High Court judges.
3. Provides a route to address "conduct unbecoming of high office" that may not amount to "proved misbehaviour" warranting impeachment under Article 124(4).
4. Formalized further in 1999 through a five-member committee mechanism to inquire into complaints.

Significance and Application

1. Acts as a non-statutory, self-regulatory code of judicial ethics in the absence of a binding legislative framework.
2. Has been invoked in several high-profile cases — including allegations against a Bombay High Court Chief Justice (1995), a sexual harassment complaint against a High Court judge (2014), and the recent inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma.
3. Ratified by the Chief Justices’ Conference (1999) and adopted by all High Courts in their respective Full Court meetings.
4. Recently reaffirmed in April 2025 when Supreme Court judges collectively resolved to publicly declare assets, drawing directly on the Restatement’s asset-disclosure principle.

Conclusion