Development & Enforcement of Performance Standards to Enhance Accountability of the Higher Judiciary in India
An evaluation of judicial performance evaluation and recommendations to allow for its institution in India
Summary: This report examines the conceptual framework and intricate working of 'Judicial Performance Evaluation' mechanisms and underscores the pressing need to introduce a JPE for the higher judiciary in India.
This report examines the conceptual framework and intricate working of Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) mechanisms by attempting to answer the following questions:
1. What is JPE?
2. Why are JPE programmes instituted?
3. How do different JPE programmes evaluate judicial performance?
4. When and how frequently are evaluations conducted in different JPE programmes?
5. Who conducts such evaluations?
It deals with the genesis and evolution of JPE, providing a theoretical and practical background on JPE and how it is practiced across the world. Further, it elucidates reasons behind instituting JPE programmes, and clarifies who is tasked with the assessment and why and examines different methods of assessing judicial performance, and the timing of evaluations in different JPE programmes. Finally, it discusses the pressing need to introduce a JPE for the higher judiciary in India, maps past attempts to do so, and presents a JPE plan that can be deployed for individual judges and for courtrooms across India.
Filed Under
About the Authors
Sumathi Chandrashekaran was a lawyer working in the field of public policy. She previously worked at Vidhi as a Senior Research Fellow and led work under Judicial Reforms. Sumathi has completed her LLB from Delhi University, and a post-graduate course in public policy from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
