The "directly elected" legislature & government would collectively take decisions on the basis of majority opinion.


Thus, it is accountable to the people they are chosen by. If these people's representatives fail to do according to the need of the people, most justifiably they are criticised or even turned down through polls.


But, the judiciary, being one of the most important authorities that functions parallelly and possesses the power sometimes not less than the legislature. If it is corrupt, i.e., should they have accountability to the people? If the answer is "no" then why must people abide by it? And if the answer is "yes", how this accountability can be built up?

Only "education & experience" should not be the prominent eligibility to "we the people" anybody so "educated & experience". A better definition, a justified acceptability, & the area(s) of jurisdiction are required.

Well, I haven't talked about any specific procedure for the accountability of the Court. But it should have "some" way(s) so that "we the people" must accept it as an authority on the basis of its justified "democratic" stance.

If we concentrate the last few  parley, the Supreme Court says that the Lower Courts should know that their jurisdiction is "limited" by the Constitution" as it is, sometimes, preceding beyond the Legislature & the Executive; but when the Supreme Court itself is asked about its own "limitation" in terms of area of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court says that such question(s) cannot be asked to the Supreme Court. So, evidently, the Supreme Court along with its subjugated Courts needed to identify the specific spheres wherein they should work.

The President of India is also accountable to the Supreme Court as the Discretionary Powers of the President can be questioned in the Court. For example, if the President of India dismisses the verdict of "Capital Punishment" using his discretionary power, it can be taken to the Court. Sill, the President has his/her accountability being elected in a specific way. We do not get any accountability to the "we the people" of the Judiciary at all.

From several sources, we come to know that neither the Military nor the Judiciary has its much greater proneness to corruption. The questions against The corruption allegations against the Judiciary is now a common thing. Day by day "we the people” are loosing faith on "Me Lord" Judiciary. It's crowded by the people because of the obligations, not much on the ground of faith.

Surely no body wants Judges to form parties and fight election, if it happens they will order to hang all opposition after the day they get elected and there will be no one to stop them from doing that.

Accountability of the Court is necessary now.

Anyone would say with guts how "Me Lord" the "corrupt judges" of India & the "Solemn" Court where this corruption is nurtured, can be put into dustbin? How that will be accountable to "we the people"?

Why each "verdict" of it MAY not be counted as "unauthorised", in cases of Afjal guru, Dantewara, Assam tribal question, SEZ, Thanjabhur Fighter Base, Babri Masjid, Taj Corridor, Sajubaba, Gujjar uprise, Nandigram, Kashmiri pandits, Bhopal Gas Disaster, Abu Salem, Universal Civil Code, and all such national debates if they are brought to court?

Why must Indian democracy abide by the unaccountable "Judiciary?

We cannot blame our founding fathers of the constitution. they made provision for it.But we have already seen the case of justice Ramaswami. How the representative of the '' we the people'' have performed in this case ? It is not the fault of the system, but the fault of the representative of the '' we the people''. They could not punish a judge. Why ?
'' we the people'' knows batter.