The Credibility of Judiciary: A System in Question Amid Allegations of Corruption

Paromita Das

New Delhi: The judiciary is often considered the cornerstone of democracy, the ultimate arbiter that ensures justice, equality, and adherence to the rule of law. For the common man, it represents the last bastion of hope when all other avenues for justice fail. However, recent developments involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court have cast a long shadow over this esteemed institution. The discovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma’s official residence during an emergency response to a fire has raised grave concerns about the judiciary’s credibility and the larger question of whether justice in Bharat is, indeed, saleable.

While the Supreme Court collegium acted swiftly by recommending Justice Varma’s transfer to the Allahabad High Court, the incident has opened Pandora’s box of doubts surrounding transparency, accountability, and integrity within the judiciary. These doubts are not just confined to this singular case; they reflect a larger malaise that threatens to erode public trust in the very system tasked with upholding justice.

The Incident: A Breach of Trust

The allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, though still under investigation, have already caused significant damage to the perception of judicial impartiality. Reports suggest that the unaccounted cash was discovered during a fire at his residence, prompting immediate scrutiny. In response, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) convened the Supreme Court collegium, seeking a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and recommending Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent court in Allahabad.

While the move is being portrayed as an effort to maintain institutional sanctity, questions remain. Is a mere transfer adequate to address the gravity of the allegations? Critics argue that this measure, while swift, may not restore public confidence, especially if no further action is taken. Litigants in Allahabad now find themselves in a precarious position, questioning whether they deserve to deal with a judge under such a cloud of suspicion.

The Fragility of Public Trust

Incidents like this one chip away at the public’s faith in the judiciary. Judges are not just interpreters of the law; they are custodians of justice and morality, wielding immense influence over society’s ethical framework. Allegations of financial impropriety, even in the absence of a formal inquiry, taint the image of the judiciary and feed a dangerous narrative: that justice can be influenced, and fairness is up for sale.

For a common man seeking justice, such incidents are disheartening. When doubts surround the integrity of those at the helm of the judiciary, the very foundation of democracy comes under threat. It is essential to remember that public trust is the judiciary’s greatest asset, and once lost, it is exceedingly difficult to regain.

Opaque Systems and Calls for Transparency

The judiciary’s opaque processes, particularly the collegium system, have often been a point of contention. While the collegium is designed to protect judicial independence by keeping appointments and transfers free from political interference, its lack of transparency has frequently invited criticism. In this case, the absence of a publicly available resolution or detailed explanation about Justice Varma’s transfer has only deepened skepticism.

The situation underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms. The in-house inquiry mechanism, established in 1999 to address allegations of misconduct among judges, remains largely hidden from public scrutiny. While judicial independence is vital, it must not come at the cost of public accountability. Greater transparency in procedures, timelines, and outcomes of such inquiries can go a long way in restoring faith in the judiciary.

The Role of the Collegium: Strengthening Accountability

The collegium’s decision to recommend Justice Varma’s transfer highlights the judiciary’s willingness to act, but the action falls short of addressing the root of the problem. The collegium must go beyond optics and take substantive steps to ensure accountability.

Justice Varma’s case could be an opportunity for introspection within the judiciary. The collegium has the power to set a precedent by initiating a transparent inquiry, urging the judge to resign, or, if warranted, pursuing impeachment proceedings. Such steps would send a clear message that no one, not even a judge, is above the law.

Systemic Challenges: Erosion of Fair Justice

Justice Yashwant Varma’s case is not an isolated one; it is emblematic of a larger systemic issue that has plagued the judiciary. Allegations of corruption, favoritism, and inefficiency are not uncommon, and they contribute to an unsettling perception that justice in Bharat is selective and, at times, saleable.

In many cases, the lack of accountability allows corrupt practices to flourish unchecked. Judges are seldom held to account, and even when allegations surface, the processes to address them are either too slow or shrouded in secrecy. This creates a culture where misconduct can thrive, further eroding the judiciary’s credibility.

The cost of such systemic flaws is immense. For the common man, the judiciary’s failure to inspire confidence means enduring prolonged delays, questionable verdicts, and a sense of powerlessness. For the nation, it undermines Bharat’s global standing as a country that prides itself on its democratic and legal principles.