A judicial system is a dispute resolution system and it must be recognized as a “service” which provides consumers expeditious and effective resolution of these disputes it offers a mechanism for the enforcement of rights and obligations of individuals.

The problems are as follows:

i.   Difficult Impeachment Procedure: Article124 of the Indian Constitution lays the groundwork to establish the Supreme Court of India and appoint the judges. Article 124(4) further enshrines the guidelines regarding the impeachment of judges. It can be argued relevantly that the conditions mandated to seek the impeachment are unnecessarily extreme and is more of a reminder for a bygone era which is losing its relevance today. The judiciary is finding itself bearing the heat of judicial accountability at present due to both the rise in the number of cases regarding judicial indecency and the new issue of the mandate of the Information Commission of India for the judges to disclose all their assets. The term “Judicial Accountability” has emerged as the latest buzz word on the Indian circuit. The judiciary is finding itself the victim of increased attacks for securing accountability, which the current burdens procedure for the impeachment of judges fails to guarantee or secure.

ii.  Exemptions from RTI: One of the major hurdles in the way of judicial transparency in our country is the reluctance of the courts to come under the radar of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. RTI Act grants any citizen of India the right to seek information from a government body about its functioning with some conditions and exceptions wherever and whenever required. The Act gives into the hands of citizens a special tool to identify and fight corruption in the system by granting them access to the public information making the entire system almost transparent. Some departments of the government have been granted exemptions from the Act under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. and one such exception has been granted to the judiciary of the country, in part (b) of the point 1 under section 8. Section 8 lays down certain exemptions which are subject to a public interest test. The public authority decides whether disclosing such information could increase public interest or withholding the information. In the RTI of 2005, there is no definition of the term public authority.

iii. Judicial Overreach: The role of Judiciary has always been under attack, majorly from the legislative branch, which feels that the courts are crossing their power and have become an extra-constitutional law-making body. They argue that the job of the judiciary is to interpret laws and not to make them and the judiciary in many stances have overlooked the legislative authority. Many a times these two terms are used by the people as synonyms, but we need to understand that these two words signify different meanings. There is a very thin line between judicial activism and judicial overreach, as when the activism crosses its limit and starts becoming judicial adventurism it takes the form of Judicial overreach. Whether the action is activism or overreach is based on the perception of the individuals. But the judiciary has always argued that due to legislative and executive underreach they have to step in and pass the directions.