Kapil Sibal called for transparent, time-bound scrutiny of complaints against judges. He warned that opaque internal procedures weaken public trust in judicial independence.Stock photo used for illustrationNewdelhi,Oct 27, 2026 22:26 ISTSenior advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday called for greater judicial accountability, saying a system that receives thousands of complaints but publishes almost no information about their outcome cannot claim to be accountable, news agency Press Trust of India reported.Sibal said judicial independence must be accompanied by visible accountability to retain public trust.

He argued that the ‘Master of the Roster’ power and the allocation of cases are administrative functions that affect justice and must be supported by reasoned explanations.Addressing an event organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms at the India International Centre in New Delhi, the Independent Rajya Sabha MP said, “Opacity in appointment and opacity in administration are not separate problems. They are the same problem.”Sibal pointed out that no Supreme Court or high court judge had been removed under the constitutional procedure in the past 26 years. “The motion against Justice V Ramaswami failed.

Justices Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen resigned before the process could conclude. Resignation has become the ordinary exit when accountability becomes inconvenient,” he said.

According to PTI, Sibal cited information shared by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in the Lok Sabha in February 2026. Meghwal had said that the office of the Chief Justice of India received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025, including 1,170 complaints in 2024.“These complaints are handled under the in-house procedure.

No public account has been given of how many were examined, how many disclosed a prima facie case, and how many produced any consequence. A system that receives thousands of complaints and publishes almost nothing about their fate cannot claim to be accountable.

It can only claim to be closed,” Sibal said. He said recent episodes showed that the problem was structural.

In August 2026, a sitting Supreme Court judge wrote to the Chief Justice of India alleging corruption, nepotism, favouritism, misuse of administrative powers and manipulation in the allocation of cases by the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. Lawyers at both benches of the high court also protested, he said.“The Collegium moved swiftly to recommend a new Chief Justice from outside the State.

The allegations were denied; the outcome of any inquiry, if one was held, is not in the public domain. The episode shows that even when a Supreme Court judge raises serious administrative concerns, the process remains internal and opaque,” Sibal said.He said the independence of the judiciary was both a basic feature of the Constitution and a trust.

The Constitution's framers had provided a mechanism to hold the higher judiciary accountable while making the removal of judges deliberately difficult, he added.“A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court may be removed only by a special majority of each House of Parliament on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Articles 124(4), 217 and 218 were designed to place the judge beyond the reach of ordinary political majorities.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was meant to give that constitutional command a workable procedure,” he said.Sibal said neither the Constitution nor subsequent legislation had adequately provided a credible, transparent and time-bound process to deal with allegations that fell short of proven misbehaviour and could not meet the requirement of a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.The Supreme Court's in-house procedure, adopted in 1999, was an attempt to address that gap, he said. However, it remained an internal arrangement without statutory backing, and its functioning was not publicly known.

A complainant writing to the Chief Justice of India rarely learnt what happened to the complaint, he added.Sibal also referred to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in January 2026 for high courts dealing with complaints against district judges. The guidelines distinguished frivolous complaints from those showing a prima facie case and said firm action, including criminal prosecution where appropriate, should follow if charges were established.“Seventy-six years of no removal, thousands of unanswered complaints, internal allegations that produce no public finding, High Courts that publish almost nothing about their own disciplinary processes, and criminal cases that proceed only after retirement are not separate facts.

They are one continuous record. The machinery has worked, up to a point,” he said.Sibal added that the system had never produced a constitutional conclusion that citizens could see and trust.He also recalled that the Supreme Court had, in February 2026, taken suo motu notice of an NCERT Class 8 textbook that discussed judicial backlog and corruption. “It banned further printing and digital dissemination of the book and issued notices to education officials.

The Court said it did not intend to stifle legitimate critique. The practical effect was the removal of a school textbook,” he said.“A judge who is answerable only to his own conscience and to an opaque internal process is not more independent.

He is less trusted. And an untrusted court cannot do the work the Constitution assigns to it,” Sibal said.Calling for reform rather than abandonment of the existing system, Sibal said the law should ensure that an inquiry initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act continued and its findings were recorded even if the judge resigned.

He said resignation should not be allowed to close the record, reiterating that judicial independence required a transparent and credible accountability process.- Ends