The just-retired Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, has forwarded the internal inquiry report on the recovery of burnt cash from the residential premises of Justice Yashwant Varma, formerly of the Delhi High Court, to the President and the Prime Minister. Under the in-house procedure, it means enforcing the resignation and voluntary retirement options on the judge have been exhausted. The last resort is for the government to initiate a motion in Parliament to remove him. The latest incident of a sitting judge’s controversial conduct has re-centred focus on judicial accountability, and it is a reflection of the legacy of goodwill that the people still look to the judiciary for answers. Justice Khanna’s efforts to lock the case are seen as an attempt to stem any erosion of public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity. He followed it up by mandating the declaration of assets by Supreme Court justices.
Accountability is the mot juste today when people are more aware of their rights and, vexed by allegations of corruption, expect fair justice from an unblemished judiciary. Growing complaints about judges’ conduct weaken the halo of judicial supremacy and independence. Data compiled in 2021 lists a whopping 1,631 complaints, including of corruption, against judicial officers. Some former justices have admitted the prevalence of corruption as well. How the judiciary has dealt with these complaints remains out of the public domain. Similarly, the lack of transparency in the SC’s roster system has been questioned even by some justices. The judiciary’s internal oversight mechanism has been called opaque. Some have pointed out that the lack of independent scrutiny of the inventories diminishes the efficacy of the asset declaration order as a tool of transparency.
Justice Khanna has cleaned house to an extent, but more needs to be done. Accountability standards require a pragmatic revision to introduce transparency. The judiciary may reconsider the structure of oversight mechanisms. Notably, the SC’s verdict is awaited in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Lokpal, the anti-corruption ombudsman, over sitting high court judges. On other fronts, the call for a mechanism that balances judicial independence with the need for a stainless reputation merits cogitation, while allowing prosecution for judicial corruption can strengthen accountability. The SC may want to revisit its judgements shielding judges’ conduct from parliamentary discussion. The judiciary is healthy when citizens are convinced its conduct is above reproach.