Source: The post The judiciary must ensure transparency in misconduct cases has been created, based on the article “Serving justices, but not justice” published in “The Hindu” on 17 June 2025. The judiciary must ensure transparency in misconduct cases.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Governance-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
Context: A fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence on March 14 led to the discovery of sacks of cash. This triggered swift judicial action, including his transfer and pending impeachment. The incident revealed deep opacity in the judiciary’s internal inquiry system, especially the secretive ‘in-house procedure’ for misconduct.
For detailed information on Judicial Accountability in India read this article here
The Varma Incident and Its Aftermath
- Shocking Discovery During Fire: Sacks of half-burnt cash were found during firefighting at Justice Varma’s official residence. The nature and source of the money remain unexplained.
- Immediate Judicial Action: Within ten days, Justice Varma was stripped of judicial duties and transferred to Allahabad High Court. A judicial committee was quickly formed to probe the case.
- Selective Disclosure by the Court: The Supreme Court released a video, some photos, and redacted letters. However, crucial documents—two reports by the Police Commissioner and the final judicial committee report—were withheld.
- Disappearance of Key Evidence: The sacks of cash reportedly vanished the next morning, allegedly removed by Justice Varma’s staff. The police did not secure them, raising serious procedural concerns.
Structural Opacity of Judicial Inquiries
- Secrecy in the ‘In-house Procedure’: Only fellow judges investigate misconduct. The existence of complaints, procedures followed, and outcomes are not disclosed publicly.
- Lack of Clear Standards and Outcomes: The committee decides whether removal is warranted. The criteria applied are unknown. Even confirmed misconduct need not be disclosed.
- Shielding Judges From Public Scrutiny: The system lacks transparency and external oversight, reducing public accountability for judges of constitutional courts.
Past Cases Reflecting Systemic Gaps
- Justice Ramana Allegations: In 2020, Andhra Pradesh CM accused Justice Ramana and others of misconduct. The Supreme Court gave a brief dismissal. Justice Maheshwari, also named, was transferred. No inquiry findings were disclosed.
- CJI Gogoi Sexual Harassment Case: In 2019, a staffer accused CJI Gogoi. A committee exonerated him without legal aid for the complainant or access to the report. Later, she was reinstated with back wages, contradicting earlier actions.
- Justice Surya Kant Allegations: Justice Surya Kant, CJI-designate for 2025, faced serious charges including bribery and asset misuse. Justice A.K. Goel urged an inquiry. Despite objections, Kant was promoted. There’s no record of any investigation.
Citizens’ Right to Know
- Judicial Endorsement of Transparency: The Supreme Court upholds the right to information as vital for democracy. This must include judicial accountability.
- Disclosure as a Safeguard: Findings from in-house inquiries are not appealable. Public access would curb arbitrariness and ensure accountability.
- Trust Through Openness: Transparency builds public confidence. Concealment signals institutional failure.
Reforming the In-House Mechanism
- Avoiding Future Scandals: Reforms should be proactive. Continued secrecy risks deeper damage.
- Beyond Symbolic Releases: Partial disclosures are inadequate. Full inquiry reports must be published.
- Balancing Accountability and Independence: Judicial independence must not shield misconduct. Real integrity needs openness and internal reflection
Question for practice:
Examine how the in-house procedure of the judiciary affects transparency and accountability in cases of judicial misconduct.
