To impartially uphold the principle of the separation of powers, the three pillars of democracy—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary—have undoubtedly played significant constitutional roles. All of them are directly or indirectly accountable to the public; therefore, none are immune to criticism. To date, grave corruption has been observed in India’s Legislature and Executive, which the “Fourth Estate” (the media) openly challenges through discussion and critique. However, perhaps due to the fear of “Contempt of Court,” there is a noticeable caution in speaking out against corruption occurring within the Judiciary, even when it is visible to the naked eye. Like any other service provider, judges and courts provide a service to society—”Justice.” Therefore, they should be held accountable for their decisions and actions. Although judges are accountable to higher courts for their rulings, the possibility cannot be ruled out that their “wide discretion” may lead to inconsistent standards or the creation of “selective justice” to mask corruption.
Once, Justice Karnan leveled corruption allegations against 33 judges, including 14 from the Supreme Court and 19 from the Madras High Court. Consequently, on May 9, 2017, a seven-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India found Karnan guilty of contempt of court and sentenced a sitting judge to six months in prison—a first in the history of the Indian Judiciary. Following this, would any member of the Fourth Estate or the general public dare to criticize corruption in the judiciary?
In 1993, after a case was filed between the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and the Shipping Corporation of India regarding the supply of ‘fire bricks,’ allegations surfaced that Justice Soumitra Sen, acting as a court-appointed receiver, had misappropriated ₹32 lakhs. After a three-member inquiry committee proved misconduct in depositing money into his personal account, a recommendation was made to the Chief Justice. He became the first judge in independent India against whom a removal motion for misappropriation of funds was passed in the Rajya Sabha.
Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju once stated in the Lok Sabha, “Nearly 1,631 complaints have been received regarding the functioning of the judiciary, which include judicial corruption. These complaints have been forwarded to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts following the ‘inter-house’ mechanism.” Between 2017 and 2021, although more than 1,600 complaints were received against judges, visible disciplinary action was taken in only a few cases.
Recently, following a fire incident, the discovery of a massive amount of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma led to widespread public and media criticism. The case took a dramatic turn after Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora shared photos and videos of the burnt currency with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court via WhatsApp. However, no First Information Report (FIR) has been filed in this case yet. On March 28, a Supreme Court bench even refused to entertain a plea seeking the filing of an FIR.
So, what happens when a corruption allegation is brought against a sitting High Court judge? Is there a transparent and functional mechanism to hold members of the judiciary accountable? The recent controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma, the second most senior judge of the Delhi High Court, has reignited an intense debate on judicial governance. Most importantly, it has sparked demands for the reinstatement of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, which aimed to replace the Collegium system of appointing judges.
The process of appointing judges varies significantly across countries. In the USA, the President nominates judges, and the Senate confirms them after hearings and a vote. This system emphasizes accountability to voters through the legislative branch and allows for broad political input. In the UK, an independent body like the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) oversees the recruitment process to ensure impartiality and reduce political influence. In South Africa, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advises the President on appointments. In France, the President appoints judges based on the recommendations of the High Council of the Judiciary. In many Latin American countries, the President nominates judges subject to Senate approval. In Switzerland, federal judges are elected by Parliament, and in cantons, judges are often elected by citizens. In Japan, Supreme Court judges are appointed by the government but are reviewed by a popular referendum every ten years.
However, no other country in the world has a “Collegium System” like India, where judges alone nominate other judges. Article 124(2) of the Constitution prescribes the process: “Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President… after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary… provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted.” In India, until 1993, judges were appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and two senior-most judges. Although the Collegium system is not mentioned in the Constitution, it evolved through three Supreme Court judgments collectively known as the “Three Judges Cases” (1981, 1993, and 1998).
Pointing out the ‘flaws’ in the Collegium system, eminent lawyer Fali Nariman once said that it is not the job of judges to appoint judges. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju also criticized the system, stating that “judges appointing judges” is not an ideal situation. Corruption within the judiciary includes bribery, nepotism, political influence, and other improper means that jeopardize judicial independence and integrity.
One of the primary causes of judicial corruption is the lack of transparency in appointments and transfers. The opaque selection of judges under the Collegium system fosters bias and nepotism. The NJAC Act (99th Constitutional Amendment Act) was an attempt to reform this. It aimed to bring greater transparency, accountability, and cooperation between the judiciary and the executive. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. To the public, this often appears as a hidden agenda to keep judicial processes away from public scrutiny.
Other potential factors include judges accepting lucrative posts after retirement, which raises concerns about quid pro quo (favors granted in return for something) during their tenure. Furthermore, the “Uncle Judge Syndrome”—where lawyers practice in courts where their relatives are judges—creates networks that influence judicial outcomes. The Law Commission’s 230th Report (2009) acknowledged this and recommended that judges should be transferred from their parent High Courts to avoid such conflicts. To combat corruption, focus must remain on strengthening transparency, accountability, and independence through measures like transparent appointments, asset disclosure, and a robust disciplinary mechanism.
Regardless of the outcome, the recent “Justice Varma episode” has shaken public faith in the judiciary. Indeed, there may be many such skeletons in the judicial closet.
Pramod Kumar Dhal
He is best described as a social commentator, grassroots observer and an author and social critic whose commentary focuses on judicial integrity, administrative reform, and the protection of the common citizen’s rights. A dynamic wildlife photographer who has made significant contributions to avian conservation with the book, “The Birds of Orissa: A Pictorial Encyclopedia” that got him the Sambad Parivesh Samman Award. He is from Kendrapara district of Odisha and can be contacted on +91.7008810112. [Views are personal]
