Serving Justices, But Not Justice
June 17, 2025

Context

  • The Indian judiciary, often hailed as the guardian of constitutional morality and a bulwark against executive excesses, has long been viewed as one of the most trusted public institutions in the country.
  • Yet, recent revelations and controversies have cast a long shadow over the credibility of this institution.
  • The case of Justice Yashwant Varma, involving sacks of cash found amidst a fire at his official residence, followed by opaque proceedings and an impeachment recommendation, exemplifies a broader malaise.
  • The problem lies not just in the specific allegations of corruption, but in the lack of transparency that characterises the judiciary’s own internal accountability mechanisms, particularly the so-called ‘in-house procedure’.

The Justice Varma Controversy: A Symptom of a Deeper Problem

  • On March 14, a fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, leading to the discovery of half-burnt sacks allegedly filled with cash.
  • Within days, Justice Varma was relieved of his duties and transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
  • Eventually, an impeachment recommendation followed, reportedly based on a judicial inquiry.
  • The swift and secretive nature of these developments is unusual and troubling.
  • Though the Supreme Court made some material public, such as video footage and redacted correspondence, crucial documents, including reports by the Commissioner of Police and the judicial committee's final findings, were withheld.
  • Most concerning is the disappearance of the alleged sacks of cash, reportedly removed by Justice Varma’s staff, raising serious questions about the integrity of the investigative process.
  • Why was such critical evidence not preserved? Why were law enforcement agencies seemingly unable or unwilling to secure the scene?
  • These questions remain unanswered, as they are enveloped in the secrecy of the judiciary’s internal disciplinary system.

The ‘In-House Procedure’: Institutionalised Opacity

  • The Justice Varma episode illustrates the inherent opacity of the judiciary’s ‘in-house procedure’, an informal mechanism designed by the higher judiciary to deal with allegations of judicial misconduct.
  • Under this system, inquiries are conducted exclusively by fellow judges, and nearly all aspects of the process, from the complaint’s existence to the findings of the inquiry, are shrouded in secrecy.
  • The problems with this system are numerous:
    • Lack of transparency: The public is not entitled to know whether an inquiry was conducted or what its outcome was.
    • Absence of procedural safeguards: Unlike regular inquiries, these proceedings are not bound by legal norms or due process requirements.
    • No public accountability: There is no external oversight or appeal, and even findings of guilt are not published.
  • The judiciary, while demanding accountability from other institutions, exempts itself from the same standards, thus undermining its own legitimacy. 

Precedents of Concern: A Pattern of Secrecy and Impunity

  • Justice Ramana and the Andhra Pradesh Allegations (2020)
    • Grave accusations made by the Chief Minister against Justice Ramana and other judges were summarily dismissed without explanation.
    • There was no public record of any inquiry into Justice J.K. Maheshwari, another named judge, who was soon elevated to the Supreme Court.
  • Sexual Harassment Allegations Against CJI Ranjan Gogoi (2019)
    • A former employee accused then CJI Gogoi of sexual harassment and victimisation.
    • The inquiry, conducted by his peers, exonerated him, without allowing the complainant legal representation or access to the final report.
    • Meanwhile, the Court launched a separate inquiry into an alleged conspiracy against the judiciary, a claim that lacked evidentiary backing.
    • After Justice Gogoi’s retirement, the complainant was reinstated with full back wages, a tacit admission of procedural and moral inconsistency.
  • Allegations Against Justice Surya Kant
    • Slated to become the CJI in 2025, Justice Surya Kant has faced serious allegations ranging from corruption to abuse of power.
    • Although some judges expressed concern and called for inquiry, there is no public record of any investigation into the charges.
    • Yet, his career trajectory has remained unaffected, underscoring the in-house system’s tendency to brush controversies under the carpet.

The Case for Reform: Transparency as a Democratic Imperative

  • The opacity of the judicial accountability process stands in sharp contrast to the principles the judiciary has itself laid down.
  • The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to information is intrinsic to the freedom of speech and expression, and a cornerstone of participatory democracy. Yet, the judiciary’s internal practices betray these ideals.
  • Public disclosure of in-house inquiry findings is essential:
    • It would develop institutional trust by showing that misconduct is taken seriously.
    • It would deter future impropriety by signalling that judicial office is not immune from scrutiny.
    • It would affirm the judiciary’s own moral and legal authority by holding itself to the same standards it imposes on others.
  • Secrecy does not protect the judiciary’s independence; it erodes it.
  • Independence does not mean insulation from accountability, rather, it should coexist with mechanisms that ensure public confidence.

Conclusion

  • The Justice Varma case, and others like it, should serve as a wake-up call and the judiciary cannot continue to operate in a parallel universe, where norms of due process and transparency do not apply.
  • While it rightly demands autonomy and respect, it must also embrace scrutiny and openness.
  • A reformed, transparent mechanism for dealing with judicial misconduct, possibly involving a mix of judicial and independent oversight, is not just desirable; it is essential for the continued legitimacy of the Indian judiciary.
  • Until then, the in-house procedure will continue to resemble a papal conclave, leaving the public to interpret shadows and smoke instead of facts and findings.

Enquire Now