Serving Justices, but not Justice

Recently, authorities found half-incinerated cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence during a fire. 

Judicial Misconduct

• Missing Evidence: He was swiftly transferred and faces impeachment, yet critical evidence like the cash and inquiry reports are missing or withheld, raising transparency concerns.
• Secretive Procedure: The opacity in Justice Varma’s case is typical of the judiciary’s ‘in-house procedure’ for misconduct inquiries. 
  • This self-fashioned system operates secretly, without public disclosure of complaints, inquiries, or guilt findings, undermining transparency.
• Questionable Inquiries: This opaque procedure has faced past scrutiny, including the terse dismissal of allegations against Justice Ramana. 
  • Similarly, sexual harassment charges against CJI Ranjan Gogoi were handled opaquely, denying the complainant legal representation and report access.
• Uninvestigated Claims: Justice Surya Kant, set to be CJI in 2025, faced serious corruption allegations that were recommended for examination. 
  • Despite this, there’s no public information on whether these complaints were ever investigated, highlighting a persistent lack of transparency.
• Call for Judicial Transparency: The Supreme Court champions citizens’ right to information, which should extend to its own inquiries. 
  • Public disclosure of reports is vital for accountability and trust. The current ‘in-house procedure’ needs reform to prevent future scandals and uphold democratic principles.

In-House Procedure’ for Judicial Misconduct

• Secrecy: Under these rules, only fellow judges investigate misconduct. Crucially, almost no aspect from the complaint’s existence to the final report is made public. The standard for determining a judge’s removal remains unknown.
• Legitimacy issue: The ‘in-house procedure’s’ legitimacy has been questioned. In 2020, allegations against Justice Ramana were tersely dismissed, with no information on an inquiry into related claims against Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Call for Transparency in Judiciary

• Right to Information and Democracy: The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the citizen’s right to information as vital for freedom of speech and a participative democracy. This right should extend to the higher judiciary, without exceptions for judicial independence.
• Safeguarding Against Arbitrariness: Since in-house inquiry findings are not appealable, public disclosure of reports is crucial. This would serve as a vital safeguard against arbitrariness and ensure greater public accountability of the judiciary.

Conclusion

Transparency fosters public trust in institutions, demonstrating a commitment to self-correction and identifying systemic issues causing misconduct. There’s a hope that future scandals won’t be needed for the ‘in-house procedure’ to shed its secretive nature, moving beyond mere symbolic gestures.