Does the absence of an enforceable code of conduct for the higher judiciary weaken public trust? Suggest institutional reforms.

Judges of the higher judiciary are guided by the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997). It is a 16-point in-house code adopted by the Supreme Court's Full Court [1], but it is neither a statute nor enforceable. The recent controversy over a sitting judge's public remarks on a sub judice voter-deletion issue shows that this gap does strain public trust, though it does not by itself destroy it [2].

How the gap weakens trust

• Unclear standards: Former CJI B.R. Gavai said judicial propriety bars a sitting judge from commenting on pending matters. Justice Bhuyan had called mass disenfranchisement unconstitutional. With no binding code, senior judges disagree in public [2].
• Apparent bias: Views aired on a case still to be decided create a fear of pre-judgment. This dents impartiality, one of the six Bangalore Principles [4].
• No middle-level sanction: The only formal remedy is removal under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. That bar is so high it is rarely used.
• Lapsed reform: The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 proposed binding standards and a public complaints mechanism, but it was never enacted [3].

Why the damage is limited

• Courts earn legitimacy mainly through reasoned judgments. The Restatement itself asks judges to let their judgments speak for them [1].
• A code imposed by the executive could endanger judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure. How a code is designed matters as much as having one.

Institutional reforms

• Codify and publish: Turn the Restatement into a detailed code adopted by the Full Court, with clear rules on extra-judicial speech, in line with the Bangalore Principles [4].
• Statutory complaints body: Revive the 2010 Bill with the Standing Committee's refinements, such as replacing vague terms like "close association" [3], and keep the oversight body led by judges.
• Graded sanctions: Advisories, censure and withdrawal of judicial work, so there are options short of impeachment.
• Recusal rules: Judges should give written reasons for stepping aside or for refusing to.
• Ethics advisory committee: It would give confidential advice before judges speak in public.
• Mandatory asset disclosure, as the 2010 Bill proposed [3].

In short, the missing code dents the appearance of impartiality more than the substance of justice. A code that the judiciary designs itself and that can be enforced would balance independence with accountability. That would strengthen the constitutional promise of a fair and trusted judiciary under Article 14 and SDG 16.6.