On March 22, 2025, in a fire-extinguishing operation at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, unveiled a scandal that shook the foundations of India’s judiciary and every law-abiding citizen of Bharat. While Justice Varma was out of town, his relatives summoned the fire brigade and authorities, who, after dousing the flames, stumbled upon a staggering hoard of cash (suspected to be unaccounted for) in a room.
This shocking discovery reverberated through judicial corridors, prompting Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to convene the Supreme Court collegium. Their response? A mere transfer of Justice Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he served before joining Delhi in October 2019. Yet, dissent within the collegium, some advocating resignation or an in-house inquiry, as per the 1999 Supreme Court procedure hints towards a deeper malaise of a judiciary shielding its own instead of confronting corruption head-on.
This incident is not an anomaly but a symptom of systemic rot which has been raised by retired Justice Katju. As illuminated by a seminal study by Shivaraj Huchhanavar titled, “Judicial Conduct Regulation: Do In-House Mechanisms in India Uphold Judicial Independence and Effectively Enforce Judicial Accountability?” Conducted with 110 experts – 19 judges, 53 advocates, and 36 academics.
The research exposed the failures of India’s in-house disciplinary mechanisms. Coupled with a passionate plea to the Prime Minister.
The Justice Varma Incident: A Window into Judicial Impunity
The fire at Justice Varma’s bungalow laid bare more than charred remains, it exposed crores of rupees, a fortune that defies explanation for a public servant. Local police escalated the find to senior officials, who briefed the government, culminating in CJI Khanna’s swift action. The collegium’s unanimous decision on 22nd March, 2025, to transfer Justice Varma to Allahabad High Court- effective immediately-aimed to quell the uproar. Yet, some of the five-member panel, including voices echoing, Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Supreme Court Advocate, Kapil Sibal’s concerns, deemed this insufficient. He pointed that transferring a judge implicated in such a grave incident tarnishes the judiciary’s image and erodes public faith. And proposed resignation or an in-house inquiry under the 1999 procedure, where the CJI seeks the judge’s response and, if unsatisfied, forms a panel of a Supreme Court judge and two High Court Chief Justices. A step toward potential parliamentary impeachment?
This leniency is indefensible. When crores surface “accidentally,” a transfer is not justice, it’s a dodge. The judiciary’s response mirrors past cases, like Justice Pushpa Ganediwala’s 2021 resignation after controversial rulings, where retirement benefits cushioned the exit. Justice Varma, too, may be shielded by a system where impeachment has never succeeded, as seen in Justice V Ramaswami’s 1993 escape due to political gridlock. Caveat, Impeachment is a process requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Findings from “Judicial Conduct Regulation: Do In-House Mechanisms in India Uphold Judicial Independence” (Reveals A Judiciary in Crisis)
The study was conducted between December 2020 and July 2021. It offers a scathing indictment of India’s in-house mechanisms, vigilance cells for subordinate courts or Kachahri and the 1999 procedure for higher judiciary. Its findings align chillingly with the Justice Varma saga:
Judicial Independence at Risk
○ Of 100 respondents, 67 per cent (67/100) rated confidence in vigilance mechanisms upholding independence at a dismal 5.62/10.
○ Judges (56.25 per cent, mean 5.81) and advocates (mean <6) reported – mechanisms prone to misuse by seniors (62.5 per cent of judges, 65 per cent of advocates), undermining individual (freedom from external pressures) and internal (freedom from intra-judicial influence) independence.
○ The European Court of Human Rights warns of such hierarchical pressures; India’s mechanisms flout this, lacking the autonomy demanded by the Bangalore Principles which sets ethical standards for judges. The principle recognises six core values – independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence.
Failure to Enforce Conduct
○ Confidence in combating corruption (mean 5.13) and misconduct (mean 5.36) was equally low.
○ For higher judiciary, 77.78 per cent of academics found the in-house procedure ineffective against corruption, criticizing its opacity 77.78 per cent were dissatisfied with its transparency.
○ Justice Varma’s transfer exemplifies this – no suspension, no probe, just relocation.
Stakeholder Distrust
Advocates (60 per cent) noted judges facing regular/occasional inappropriate influences (57.89 per cent), with 68 per cent seeing court staff as corruptible and 58 per cent pegging advocates as corruption conduits echoed by 88.67 per cent of academics. As the cash hoard suggests that this ecosystem of corruption thrives under laid-back oversight.
Reform Imperatives
Judges demanded objective, transparent vigilance setups; advocates sought autonomy and speed; academics called for independent, accountable mechanisms. All urged alignment with international standards like the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which India ratified in 2011.
Call to Action
The Justice Varma incident and research findings fuel a clarion call to the President Draupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, blending empirical rigour with a citizen’s plea.
End the Sham of In-House Inquiries: The 1999 procedure allows judges caught with unaccounted wealth to quietly retire with benefits. This must be abolished. We need laws aligned with UNCAC Article 30 to ensure criminal prosecution and imprisonment for corrupt judges, rather than allowing them mere transfers that serve as superficial punishments. Justice must be served with determination, not mere gestures.
Enforce Transparency with Asset Disclosure: We urge the passing of a constitutional amendment or legislation requiring judges and their families to publicly declare their assets on a government portal. This will enable citizens to report suspicious transactions with evidence, as outlined in UNCAC Article 13(2). If vast sums like those found in Justice Varma’s residence were previously unaccounted for, the question remains: why were these discrepancies not detected sooner? Transparency is the crucial antidote to judicial opacity.
Abolish Contempt of Court: The existing Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, which effectively makes the court both judge and jury over its critics, needs to be discarded. It stifles the truth and shields judicial misconduct from public scrutiny. Approximately 74.25 per cent of experts acknowledge the misuse of current mechanisms. Eliminating this law will liberate public discourse on judicial conduct and enhance accountability.
Overhaul the Collegium System: The current collegium system, upheld by the 2015 NJAC ruling, has proven ineffective in ensuring judicial accountability, with 67 per cent of experts concurring. It is imperative to establish an independent body comprising judges, lawyers, and citizens tasked with overseeing judicial conduct. This body would end the near- immunity from impeachment that higher judiciary currently enjoys. From the lower courts to the Supreme Court, corruption must be addressed decisively.
Among the three pillars of democracy–Executive, Legislature, Judiciary–the Judiciary is the only one that largely remains free from direct accountability and immune to public pressure. As a fundamental pillar of democracy, the Judiciary must also be immune to corruption; otherwise, it can pose a serious threat to the system. If corruption seeps into the judicial system, the very foundation of society will shift from justice to injustice, ultimately eroding people’s faith in democracy. It is crucial to understand that those who deliver justice must themselves adhere to the principles of justice.
The judiciary’s rot, from hoards of cash- burnt at a judge’s home, to advocates as corruption conduits threatens the core of democracy while exposing its misdeeds. The government is required to act boldly at the moment, jail the corrupt, expose their wealth. The people demand a judiciary of justice, not privilege.
Comments