The judiciary is often described as the bedrock of a functioning democracy, upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no one is above it. The developments surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence, are deeply troubling. While the transfer order by the Supreme Court collegium may seem important, the incident raises pressing questions about transparency, accountability, and the standards expected of India’s higher judiciary. At its core, this episode underscores the fragility of public trust in judicial institutions. Judges wield immense power, not only over legal outcomes but also in shaping the moral and ethical compass of a nation.

Allegations of financial impropriety ~ even before a formal inquiry ~ cast a long shadow over this image. The Supreme Court collegium’s swift decision to recommend Justice Varma’s transfer to his parent high court at Allahabad suggests an intent to maintain institutional sanctity. However, it also highlights the judiciary’s delicate balancing act: preserving its credibility while respecting due process. The facts as reported indicate that cash was discovered during an emergency response to a fire at Justice Varma’s bungalow. That the Chief Justice of India (CJI) convened the collegium promptly and sought a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice reflects a no-nonsense approach. Yet, the question lingers ~ will a transfer alone suffice in restoring public confidence, and will it not amount to Allahabad litigants being treated as children of a lesson god? If substantiated, such conduct would call for far sterner action, potentially leading to an in-house inquiry and, if warranted, impeachment proceedings.

Advertisement

The stakes are high, not just for India’s global standing, but for its capacity to deliver justice impartially. Fairness must outweigh optics if credibility is to be preserved. This situation also brings to the forefront the opaque nature of the collegium system. While designed to shield the judiciary from external pressures, its lack of transparency often invites criticism. In this case, the absence of a publicly available resolution, despite significant public interest, risks undermining confidence further. A proactive disclosure of facts and decisions could go a long way in reinforcing trust. Moreover, the broader lesson here is about the need for systemic reforms. The inhouse inquiry mechanism, although in place since 1999, remains shrouded in secrecy. Public accountability should not be sacrificed at the altar of judicial independence. Greater clarity on procedures, timelines, and outcomes in such cases can strengthen both integrity and public faith. Justice Varma’s situation may well serve as a catalyst for deeper introspection within the judiciary.

There is an opportunity here to reaffirm the values of probity and accountability that the institution must embody. The collegium’s next steps ~ whether urging resignation or initiating an inquiry ~ will signal the seriousness with which the judiciary polices itself. Ultimately, India’s democracy depends on the unimpeachable integrity of its courts. Every effort must be made to ensure that those entrusted with interpreting the law remain beyond reproach