lack of a robust complaints mechanism, and resistance to disclosure norms.
The question is no longer whether the judiciary should be accountable—it is how such accountability can be institutionalised without undermining its independence.

One of the most contentious areas continues to be the appointment of judges through the Collegium system. Despite repeated calls for reform, the system remains shrouded in secrecy. The Supreme Court Collegium publishes certain decisions online, yet the reasons for selecting or rejecting a candidate, or why some names are returned by the executive and accepted or not reconsidered by the Collegium, remain unexplained to the public. This creates an environment where public trust is eroded, even if the appointments are made with integrity. The case of Justice S. Muralidhar, whose transfer from the Delhi High Court in 2020 attracted public scrutiny, is often cited as a flashpoint for the lack of transparency in judicial transfers.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), was an attempt to make appointments more participatory. However, the Court held it unconstitutional on grounds of judicial independence. While the verdict reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in appointing judges, it left unresolved the core concern of accountability.

In a progressive move, the Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, thereby subjecting it to scrutiny under certain parameters (CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal).

While this decision was welcomed as a step towards openness, its implementation has been cautious, and disclosures under the RTI regime remain limited. The judiciary must now work toward institutionalising proactive transparency measures rather than merely reacting to external pressure.

Recent developments have also highlighted the need for a credible in-house mechanism for dealing with allegations of judicial misconduct. Currently, the in-house procedure lacks statutory backing and transparency. Allegations of impropriety, especially against judges of constitutional courts, often fizzle out due to the absence of a structured and publicly accessible grievance redressal process. The absence of a judicial complaints authority, despite being recommended by the Law Commission and several expert bodies, remains a glaring gap.

Further, the lack of live streaming of court proceedings, despite the Supreme Court’s own verdict in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), is disappointing. While some constitutional bench hearings have been streamed recently (e.g., the hearing on abrogation of Article 370 in 2023), a comprehensive and regular policy remains elusive. Access to courtrooms is access to justice, and digital transparency in proceedings is essential for building public trust.

However, it must be acknowledged that judicial reforms cannot be externally imposed in a top-down manner. The judiciary must lead this process of introspection. Judicial independence and judicial accountability are not mutually exclusive. The true test of an institution’s strength lies not in resisting scrutiny but in welcoming it as a path to improvement.

In conclusion, an open, transparent, and accountable judiciary is not a threat to its independence—it is its strongest foundation. The trust reposed in the courts is immense, but trust cannot be sustained by tradition alone; it must be continually earned through conduct, reform, and openness. As the judiciary takes on ever more significant roles in shaping policy, preserving rights, and arbitrating conflicts, it must also reflect upon the mirror of public scrutiny—not as a burden, but as a constitutional responsibility