Express View on Justice Yashwant Varma case: An open justice

The Supreme Court has taken a historic step by disclosing allegations that authorities found cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after a fire broke out on the premises on March 14. Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, has established a three-member panel to conduct an in-house inquiry, initiating the constitutional procedure for addressing complaints against judges of the higher judiciary.

In the meantime, Yashwant Varma has been relieved of judicial responsibilities. Chief Justice Khanna’s actions are commendable, as they send a crucial message that the court prioritizes institutional transparency. This move establishes a new standard for addressing concerns about the integrity of judges within an institution entrusted with upholding the core principles and fundamental values of a constitutional democracy—an institution that must remain beyond reproach. However, this marks only the beginning of the process.

Also Read: India’s $23 Billion Plan to Compete with China’s Factories Set to Expire After Falling Short

Justice Yashwant Varma’s Denial vs. Inquiry Findings

As the in-house inquiry begins and other law enforcement agencies step in, investigators will clarify the details of the case. However, at this stage, the Supreme Court has disclosed information, partially redacted the preliminary internal inquiry report, and Justice Varma has officially denied any wrongdoing. Additionally, a purported video showing sacks of half-burnt currency notes raises critical questions that authorities must address.

This marks the second in-house inquiry within just over three months. Back in December, Justice Khanna intervened following complaints against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, who had made a controversial speech on the Uniform Civil Code at an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In that case, people perceived the judge as taking a religious stance and portraying an “Other” in a disrespectful and discriminatory manner. In response, the Supreme Court sought details from the High Court, Opposition leaders expressed outrage, and civil society organizations demanded an inquiry.

Also Read: Vignesh Puthur left Rohit Sharma, Suryakumar Yadav at sixes and sevens in Mumbai Indians nets, was sent to South Africa

Growing Scrutiny and the Need for Judicial Reforms

Today, the judiciary faces increasing public scrutiny. In the age of social media, people constantly monitor the actions of judges—both inside and outside the courtroom. Traditional approaches, such as punitive transfers for cases of corruption or misconduct, are no longer sufficient. For instance, when the Collegium recommended transferring Justice Varma to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association strongly opposed the decision and refused to perceive itself as a “trash bin.”

Political leaders have leveraged this situation to push an argument for the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Speaking on the issue in the Rajya Sabha, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar referenced the NJAC Act, which the Supreme Court had previously struck down. He called it a “historic legislation” that had gained “unprecedented consensual support” in Parliament and aimed to address judicial concerns effectively. The unfolding events highlight the pressing need for greater transparency, accountability, and reform within the judiciary.

Also Read : Jaya Bachchan: Only Narendra Modi Matches Film Star Popularity