The fire at a High Court judge’s official residence in Delhi that allegedly burnt a large amount of cash has dominated the headlines for the last one week. Every one has his own take on the incident; déjà vu is the feeling of the common man who has often faced judicial corruption in his encounters with law; the judicial fraternity is glum, as the carefully crafted mask of absolute impartiality and incorruptibility of the higher judiciary has been ripped away; politicians across party lines are elated that judges, who often excoriate them in open court, have received their comeuppance. Additionally, politicians spy a golden chance of reviving the defunct National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act.

To recapitulate: on 14 March 2025, a fire broke out in the outhouse of the residence of a senior judge of the Delhi High Court. The fire did not reach the main building and was soon doused, but along with sundry items, some jute bags containing Indian currency got burnt. For close to a week, till the press got a whiff of the matter, all authorities kept mum, and the first statement issued by the Supreme Court, some days after the fire avoided mentioning the burnt cash.

Advertisement

Hoping that public feeling could be assuaged by a transfer of the judge, the statement mentioned that the judge in question was being transfe – rred to Allahabad High Court. But public feeling was not appeased by such band-aid measures, the Allahabad Bar vociferously protested that the Allahabad High Court was not a ‘trash bin’ for tainted judges, and certain public-minded citizens mounted an e-mail campaign, which forced the Supreme Court to publicly disclose the videos of burning currency (shared with it by Delhi Police), as also the internal enquiry report of the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. Last heard, the Chief Justice of India had constituted a three-member committee, comprising two High Court Chief Justices and a High Court Judge, to investigate the allegations against the judge. Justice Yashwant Verma, the man at the centre of the controversy, is of impeccable judicial pedigree ~ son of a High Court Judge, with uncles, nephews and cousins practicing as advocates.

Those who know Justice Verma find charges against him hard to believe, as he had the reputation of a fearless and honest judge. On his part, Justice Verma has strongly denied all allegations, stating that neither he nor his family members or servants had placed the cash in the outhouse, which was freely accessible to a variety of persons, and that he was at Bhopal at the time the fire broke out, preventing him from witnessing the alleged burning of currency notes.

Relatively young, and a High Court judge for ten years, Justice Verma is in line for all top posts in the judiciary. In his defence Justice Verma has stated that the alleged cash recovery, was a conspiracy to malign him, and mar his career prospects. Possession of unaccounted cash is an offence under the Income-Tax Act, which is punishable with seven year’s imprisonment and penalty. If the source of such money is a bribe, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita also kick in. Also, intentionally burning Indian currency is a criminal offence under the IPC, punishable with seven years’ imprisonment and fine. Further, the Evidence Act and the Income-Tax Act presume that if someone is found in possession of some article, then the onus is on him to prove that the said article did not belong to him.

Despite such stringent legal provisions, it would be an uphill task to pin the existence of the cash, let alone its ownership, on Justice Verma because the remnants of the burnt cash have been swept away. Despite the existence of a video of the burnt cash, a clever defence counsel could argue that the currency notes were, in fact, churan notes. Also, the Delhi Fire Chief has stated that no cash was found at Justice Ver – ma’s residence ~ a statement latched on by Justice Verma for his defence. Further, the alleged open access to the outhouse by servants and maintenance staff, and the conspiracy theory, will definitely help Justice Verma.

The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court did visit Justice Verma’s residence the day after the fire, but the ‘crime’ scene was not secured. The three-member committee of learned judges is unlikely to find any solid evidence ~ for or against Justice Verma ~ as the long gap would have enabled evidence to disappear, and everyone would have had time to brush-up his story. Be that as it may, corruption in the judiciary is like a subterranean volcano, only occasionally breaking through the surface. Judicial corruption came into the limelight for the first time in 1993, when Parliament convened to impeach Justice V Ramaswami, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.

The impeachment motion failed, but the weak moral fibre of the judge stood exposed. Noted jurist and former Law Minister Shanti Bhu shan and his son, Prashant Bhushan, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2010, alleging that eight of the previous sixteen Chief Justices of India had been corrupt. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the father-son duo but the Supreme Court did not have the stomach to bring the matter to a logical conclusion. In a sixty-page suicide note penned in August 2016, former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Kalikho Pul, detailed the corrupt dealings of some sitting and retired Supreme Court judges, and some senior Congress politicians.

Despite the matter reaching the Supreme Court, charges made in the suicide note were never investigated. Many a time, High Court judges have been caught, with their hands in the till. Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court was arrested in 2003, in a widespread Delhi Development Authority scandal. Justice Nirmal Yadav of Punjab and Har yana High Court was arraig – ned on corruption charges in 2011. No decision has been rea – ch ed in either case. Then there is the case of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, against whom an impeachment motion was passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2011, for misappropriation of funds.

Justice Sen resigned before the impeachment motion reached the Lok Sabha. There are more such cases, but briefly put, all such instances show that no judge ever received his just desserts. In the present instance, the conduct of all stakeholders has been equally blameworthy. The media is busy conducting its own trial, like in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. The Supreme Court, which generally comes down heavily on even a whiff of corruption by public servants, and which finds economic crimes worse than murder, is strangely reticent.

Politicians, ignoring the corruption in their own ranks, are hell-bent on subverting the independence of the judiciary, on the pretext of reining-in judicial corruption. The common man finds validation of what he knew all along ~ public functionaries are fighting battles and making merry at his expense. In the final analysis, the issue boils down to striking a fine balance between judicial independence and judges’ accountability. Constitutional provisions prohibit the discussion of judges’ conduct in Parliament or State legislatures.

A Supreme Court or High Court judge can be removed only on impeachment by Parliament. Also, no FIR can be registered against a higher court judge, without permission from the Chief Justice of In dia. However, there exist no corresponding provisions to ensure accountability of judges. An inhouse enquiry procedure does exist, but is not very effective, as the present case would show. A Judicial Accountability Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2010, but could not make the cut in the Rajya Sabha. Similar bills for enforcing judicial accountability were introduced in 2020 and 2023. According to legal luminaries, all judicial accountability bills fall foul of Article 124(5) of the Constitution that provides for impeachment proceedings as the sole punishment for a judge.

With more than 1,600 complaints being received against judges, in the year gone by, and several judges being known to be corrupt, the onus is squarely on the Supreme Court to devise a workable and transparent mechanism to identify and fix corrupt judges. Lastly, we should not forget that everyone has a vital interest in having independent and honest judges. As US President Andrew Jackson said more than two centuries ago: “All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.”

(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)