Serving justices, but not justice

In this image taken from www.allahabadhighcourt.in is a profile of Justice Yashwant Varma.
| Photo Credit: PTI

On March 14, while battling a fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence, authorities made a startling discovery: several half-incinerated sacks of cash. Within 10 days of the fire, Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, was stripped of judicial work and transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Less than two months after the incident, following an inquiry by a judicial committee, he faces impeachment. The inquiry was unusual in terms of its pace, and the Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to share information with the public. However, this information conceals more than it reveals: the Supreme Court published a video, a few photos of the burning sacks of cash, and partially redacted correspondence relating to the incident. However, vital documents, including two reports by the Commissioner of Police, and the final report of the three-member judicial committee that forms the basis for the Chief Justice of India (CJI)’s recommendation for Justice Varma’s impeachment, were not published. Further, the sacks of cash allegedly found on the premises are missing. News reports suggest that Justice Varma’s staff removed them on the morning after the fire. It is unclear why this critical evidence that forms the basis of the corruption inquiry was not secured by the police.

The opacity surrounding the episode is not exceptional, but a result of the self-fashioned rules (the ‘in-house procedure’) deployed by the higher judiciary to inquire into incidents of misconduct by judges of constitutional courts.

The ‘in-house procedure’

Under these rules, inquiries into misconduct are to be undertaken only by fellow judges. Almost no aspect of the procedure including the existence of a complaint, the institution of an inquiry, the procedure adopted, and the final report is required to be made public. A finding of guilt is not required to be disclosed to citizens. The committee can determine whether the misconduct warrants the judge’s removal. The standard applied while deciding on the appropriate course of action is not known.

The past decade has given sufficient reason to question the legitimacy of the in-house procedure. In 2020, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh levelled grave allegations against Justice Ramana and other judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On the eve of Justice Ramana’s appointment as CJI, the Supreme Court published a terse dismissal of the complaint. The complaint also concerned Justice J.K. Maheshwari, who was transferred from the Andhra Pradesh High Court shortly after the allegations, and is now a judge of the Supreme Court. There is no information as to whether there was ever an inquiry into the complaint against him.

There were also allegations of sexual harassment against CJI Ranjan Gogoi in 2019. A three-member committee of Supreme Court judges exonerated CJI Gogoi of the charges. The complainant, a former Supreme Court staffer who also alleged she was removed from service for rebuffing the CJI’s advances, was not permitted to have a lawyer present when summoned before the judicial committee, nor provided a copy of the final report dismissing her complaint. The Court also launched an inquiry into whether the complaint was part of a larger ‘conspiracy’ and constituted an attack on the independence of the judiciary. Admittedly, there was no evidence to this effect. The complainant was reinstated after CJI Gogoi’s retirement, with full back wages, with no accounting for these patently inconsistent actions.

Justice Surya Kant, who is slated to be CJI in November 2025, faced serious allegations while he was a judge at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These included taking bribes for bail orders, and of illegal acquisition of assets. In 2017, Justice A.K. Goel, a Supreme Court judge who had spent six years on the bench with Justice Surya Kant, was consulted by CJI Kehar regarding the allegations. Justice Goel said that allegations in respect of acquisition of assets, along with allegations into corruption and casteism in the selection of subordinate judicial officers, needed examination. In 2018, the Collegium approved Justice Surya Kant’s elevation as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Justice Goel recorded his objection in a letter to CJI Dipak Misra, noting that he had no information about an inquiry into the allegations, and reiterating that Justice Surya Kant was not suitable for the post till a thorough inquiry was conducted. To date, there is no information as to whether these complaints were investigated.

Citizens’ right to know

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the citizen’s right to information as an integral facet of the freedom of speech and expression; it is the bedrock of a participative democracy. No exception ought to be afforded to information about the higher judiciary, on the grounds of preserving judicial independence or otherwise. Findings from in-house inquiries are not appealable, and public disclosure of the reports would in fact serve as a vital safeguard against arbitrariness and ensure greater public accountability. Transparency also fosters public trust in an institution, and speaks to its commitment to look inwards and identify systemic issues that enable misconduct.

One hopes that it will not take further scandals involving the higher judiciary before the ‘in-house procedure’ stops resembling papal conclaves, with the public’s understanding limited to the colour of the smoke from the Chapel’s chimney.