Are existing mechanisms effective against judicial corruption?

• Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge, was reportedly robbed of unaccounted cash.

• Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry into the matter.

• Justice Varma has been repatriated to his parent High Court in Allahabad and will not be assigned any judicial work until the Supreme Court-mandated inquiry is completed.

• Sanjay Hegde and Alok Prasanna Kumar discuss the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in combating judicial corruption.

• Hegde argues that impeachment is designed to shield judges, not as a mechanism for accountability.

• Kumar suggests an internal mechanism within the judiciary to transparently address serious misconduct.

• He argues that judicial independence has evolved with the rise of constitutional democracies.

• The in-house procedure was established to prevent misuse of legal processes against the judiciary.

• Kumar acknowledges the difficulty of prosecuting corruption cases in a country with weak enforcement institutions and limited capacity to secure convictions.

• He acknowledges a shift towards transparency in the Supreme Court’s handling of the Justice Yashwant Varma case.

The Inquiry Process and Judicial Misconduct in India

• The inquiry process should uphold natural justice principles and safeguard the rights of the accused.

• A balanced framework is necessary to command the confidence of all stakeholders and prevent further litigation.

• The Court’s decision to release a video purportedly showing the recovery of unaccounted cash was influenced by public speculation.

• Decisions should be made with caution and evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial.

• The Court could benefit from appointing dedicated communications personnel to prevent misinformation and bolster public confidence.

• The government holds a seat at the table, but the question is whether it should wield a blank cheque.

• The collegium system resembles a search-and-selection committee, with the Union government following a pick-and-choose approach.

• The government should define clear, enforceable judicial standards and mandate judges to disclose relatives practising in the same court.

• The National Judicial Appointments Commission should be revived, and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, should be reconsidered.

• The legal profession already operates through an informal system of peer review. Institutionalizing this peer review process would strengthen internal accountability.

• Liberalizing contempt of court laws requires consequences for judges who invoke them arbitrarily.

• There must be space for good-faith discourse on judicial corruption without the spectre of criminal contempt looming over those who voice legitimate concerns.