The time has come to move towards an open justice. A great democracy such as ours deserves this.
The fire in a judge’s home has not only torched the reputation of its occupant – a sitting Delhi High Court judge – but is in danger of blackening the credibility of the judiciary.
One would have thought that the discovery of cash, much, if not all of it, allegedly unaccounted for, would have caused the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to hold an open and eminently transparent inquiry.
But that didn’t happen.
What we got was an inexplicable decision. The Supreme Court Collegium (the CJI-led five judge highest decision-making body of the Apex Court) transferred Justice Varma back to his parent court — the Allahabad High Court. A move that greatly agitated the Allahabad High Court bar association which within hours, in a break from the norm, wrote a stinker to the Supreme Court asking it not to treat it like a “trash can” — an ostensible dumping ground for tarnished judges. The seeming attempt by the Supreme Court at brushing the matter under the carpet prompted a withering public backlash.
Perhaps, aware that the collegium’s action wasn’t going to fly, the Chief Justice of India swiftly sought to control the damage by ordering an in-house inquiry. The CJI also de-rostered the judge. Additionally, the Chief Justice of India posted a series of videos on the Apex Court’s official website of the burnt currency notes recovered from Justice Varma’s home. This act virtually ruined Justice Varma’s case.
Yet, we shouldn’t breathe easy. An in-house probe is nowhere near enough. The discovery at Justice Varma’s home was in public glare, so the inquiry should have been too.
Second, how can judges be judging judges? As the sexist axiom goes: Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. Surely, this in-house inquiry panel is a travesty in the making. What if Justice Varma is let off? Even if it is for compelling reasons, the outcome will never be above suspicion. Justice must be done, but must also be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, the lurch towards opacity is not out of character. Believe it or not, judges in this great democracy of ours appoint themselves. The SC Collegium publishes no eligibility criteria and no reasoning for appointing, promoting, transferring, or dropping judges.
Worse, the SC has struck down well-considered legislation designed to bring about transparency in judicial appointments in line with the best practices existent in all other major democracies.
The ostensible reason for striking down any reform is to maintain institutional autonomy. But when other democratic nations can maintain an equilibrium, India can too. Surely.
More crucially, the judiciary also exempts itself from any stipulation that mandates the compulsory declaration of assets. As of 2024, only 98 of 749 High Court judges have declared their net asset worth. Imagine. Would any other Indian citizen be able to claim such an exemption?
The exemption can’t stay. What’s the guarantee that judges aren’t being bought? How does one eliminate the possibility of a conflict of interest? In 2007, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that details of judges’ asset declarations should be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) challenged this ruling in the Delhi High Court in 2009. In 2010, the Delhi High Court upheld the CIC order, affirming that the information about asset declarations by judges is not exempt from disclosure. Astoundingly, the Supreme Court, however, appealed the decision, delaying the full implementation of asset transparency. Why? Is there something to hide?
The higher judiciary has made such a virtue out of institutional autonomy that it has turned into a veritable judicial autarky. A parallel state beyond the citizen’s gaze. The time has come to move towards an open justice. A great democracy such as ours deserves this.
