Read Time: 08 minutes
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is,” said Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Charles Evans Hughes. With unaccounted cash found at a judge’s residence and the Collegium opting for a quiet transfer, the question remains—who watches the watchdogs?
A recent fire at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma led to the discovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash, raising concerns within the judiciary. The incident occurred while Justice Varma was out of town; his family members alerted emergency services to address the fire. Upon extinguishing the blaze, firefighters and police conducting a damage assessment reportedly found a significant sum of cash in one of the rooms.
The discovery of unaccounted cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma led to swift action from authorities. Local police promptly informed senior officials, escalating the matter to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
As per media reports, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna convened an urgent meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium, which unanimously decided to transfer Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court, where he had previously served before his 2021 appointment to the Delhi High Court. Some Collegium members have reportedly suggested that Justice Varma should resign to uphold public trust in the institution.
This incident has sparked discussions about maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.
Does merely relocating a judge instead of initiating a full inquiry uphold transparency, or does it erode public trust? If allegations of misconduct are handled through quiet transfers rather than open scrutiny, does it set a dangerous precedent for the judiciary?
The Supreme Court Collegium’s swift decision appears more like damage control than a commitment to accountability.
The debate surrounding judicial independence and accountability is not new. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case serves as a critical reference point in understanding the power dynamics within the judiciary. The Supreme Court, through its verdict in the NJAC judgment, reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments, emphasizing that any interference by the executive could compromise judicial independence. However, the Collegium system, which emerged from the Second and Third Judges cases, has been criticized for its opacity and lack of accountability.
The NJAC was introduced as a legislative effort to ensure transparency in judicial appointments, involving a mix of judicial and non-judicial members. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, arguing that the inclusion of non-judicial members—such as the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons—posed a risk to judicial independence. The court reasoned that the executive’s participation could lead to appointments influenced by political considerations, thereby compromising the impartiality of the judiciary. Yet, critics argue that the Collegium itself lacks transparency, functioning behind closed doors with little public accountability.
A parallel can be drawn between the NJAC case and the present controversy surrounding Justice Varma’s transfer. If the judiciary insists on insulating itself from external oversight, how does it ensure that internal checks are effective? The transfer of a judge facing allegations without a proper investigation appears to be a self-serving measure rather than a step toward genuine accountability. The fundamental concern remains: Is judicial independence being interpreted as judicial impunity?
Judicial independence does not mean the absence of accountability. The judiciary cannot operate in isolation, particularly when actions such as quiet transfers raise doubts about its willingness to self-regulate. The risk is that the judiciary, in protecting its own, may undermine public trust in its impartiality.
The transfer of Justice Varma without an inquiry echoes past instances where allegations against judges were brushed aside rather than rigorously investigated. If the judiciary fails to establish clear accountability mechanisms, it risks alienating the very public whose faith it seeks to uphold. While the Collegium system remains firmly in place after the NJAC judgment, this incident reinforces the need for more transparent and robust internal checks to prevent the erosion of judicial credibility.
As the debate over judicial appointments and oversight continues, one thing is clear: mere independence without accountability is insufficient. The judiciary, as the final arbiter of constitutional principles, must hold itself to the highest standards. Anything less risks weakening the very institution it seeks to protect.
Please Login or Register
