THE CONTEXT: A fire-related search at the Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma on 14 March 2025 reportedly yielded large bundles of unaccounted cash. A three-judge Supreme Court (SC) in-house panel completed its fact-finding on 4 May 2025 and indicted the judge, who has since been transferred and divested of work. Parliament is weighing an impeachment motion for the Monsoon Session, while MPs and the Vice-President (as Rajya Sabha Chairman) publicly question the adequacy of the judiciary’s internal mechanisms.
THE BACKGROUND:
-
- Constituent Assembly vision: security of tenure, fixed remuneration and immunity (Articles 124–127, 217).
- Shift from Parliamentary supremacy (Nehru) to “Constitutional supremacy” (Keshav Singh 1965; PUCL 2005) that permits judicial review of legislative action.
- Five historical impeachment attempts—none succeeded: most collapsed at the preliminary committee stage.
THE LEGAL & PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK:
| Instrument | Salient provisions | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 | Motion by ≥100 Lok Sabha or ≥50 Rajya Sabha MPs → three-member judicial committee → report tabled → Parliamentary address to President. | Ensures due process before removal. |
| Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 | Timelines, evidence standards, right of defence | Operational detail |
| Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1997 | Voluntary code of ethical conduct; forms the core of in-house procedure | Soft-law peer regulation. |
| K Veeraswami v UOI 1991 | Prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires Presidential sanction after CJI consultation. | Balances criminal liability with independence. |
THE THEORETICAL LENSES:
-
- Constitutional Morality vs Majoritarian Pressure: Mandates due process even when public outrage is high.
- “Peer-review” model (Harry T Edwards, 1989): self-regulation preserves decisional independence.
- Latimer House & Siracusa Principles: The Legislature may remove judges only after a prior judicial fact-finding to avoid a political vendetta.
DRIVERS OF REFORM:
-
- Rising media scrutiny after cash-for-job scandals in subordinate courts.
- Global trend: the United States House Bill 1811 (Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act 2025) proposes that inquiries continue even if judges retire—mirroring Indian concerns.
- Digital transparency demands—citizens track judges on social media.
GLOBAL COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE:
| Country | First-tier fact-finding | Legislative stage | Sanction model |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.K. | Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) led by judges & lay members | Lord Chancellor & Lord Chief Justice decide removal for lower judiciary; Parliament for senior judges | Public annual reports |
| U.S. | Judicial Councils (peer + lay) | House impeachment, Senate trial | Bills pending to keep probes alive post-retirement (H.R. 1811). |
| Canada | Canadian Judicial Council; majority of judges | Joint address of House & Senate | Mandatory publication of inquiry reports |
India lacks lay representation and proactive publication.
THE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES SO FAR
-
- Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2005: Proposed National Judicial Council (five senior judges) for complaints; lapsed.
- Judicial Standards & Accountability Bill 2010: Added “declaration of assets”; also lapsed.
- E-Committee of SC (Phase III, 2024-28): Developing portal for misconduct complaints tracking (beta).
THE ISSUES:
-
- Opacity of in-house mechanism: Reports are confidential; absence of statutory basis invites allegations of “judges judging themselves”.
- Overlap & turf friction: Vice-President’s letters to CJI in Justice Yadav case show institutional rivalry, risking politicisation.
- Delay loop: No Statutory timeline for the Speaker/Chairman to admit a motion; signatures often lapse.
- Conflict of interest: Committee members drawn from the same collegium network; perceived leniency.
- Presidential sanction bottleneck: Veeraswami safeguard can be misused to stall legitimate criminal probes.
- Whistle-blower vacuum: Law clerks/staff lack statutory protection; fear retaliation.
- Information asymmetry: Parliament votes without access to full evidence (Tankha’s demand highlights this).
- Low success rate: High removal threshold (two-thirds of members present & voting) encourages political bargaining rather than fact-based decision.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Statutory National Judicial Ethics Commission: Enact a re-worked Judicial Standards and Accountability Act that combines judges, eminent citizens, and Bar representatives, ensuring transparent inquiries within 180 days.
- Public release of redacted inquiry reports: Mandate publication after completion, protecting privacy where needed; builds informed Parliamentary debate and citizen trust.
- Time-bound impeachment calendar: Speaker/Chairman must decide admissibility within 30 days; committee to submit report in 90 days; addresses delay loop.
- Mandatory asset & interest disclosure: Annual, online declarations by higher-court judges, attested by an independent auditor; deters unexplained wealth.
- Whistle-blower shield for court staff & law clerks: Amend the Whistle-blowers Protection Act 2014 to cover judicial employees; grants anonymity and contempt immunity.
- Digital evidence ledger: Use blockchain to store seized material (cash-seizure images, call records) with hash verification, preventing tampering disputes.
- Ethics & mental-wellness training: National Judicial Academy to conduct compulsory biennial modules on integrity, financial prudence, and stress management.
- AI-based early-warning analytics: Deploy Supreme Court Data Grid to flag unusual adjournment patterns or correlated asset spikes for human review.
- Parliamentary Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics: A bipartisan body to scrutinise annual ethics reports and table recommendations; fosters continuous oversight without day-to-day interference.
- Clarify Veeraswami sanction timelines: Statutory 60-day limit for the President/CJI to decide on sanction; deemed approval if deadline lapses, ensuring criminal law moves swiftly.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Justice Yashwant Varma affair is a stress-test for India’s delicate balance between an independent and an accountable higher judiciary. The constitutional design already provides a calibrated two-step process—peer inquiry followed by a Parliamentary vote. The urgent task for policymakers is to modernise this framework with statutory timelines, digital transparency and whistle-blower safety so that public confidence is restored without sacrificing judicial autonomy. Unless Parliament acts decisively yet prudently, episodes of misconduct will continue to erode the moral capital of one of the Republic’s most trusted institutions.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain. 2019
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Judicial independence without a concomitant framework for accountability risks degenerating into judicial despotism. Discuss.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word