By Dilip Bobb
There’s a biblical quote that says: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” That sentiment now circles back to the Indian judiciary itself, with two High Court judges facing impeachment. Justice Yashwant Varma has been indicted after large amounts of unaccounted cash were discovered in a room at his official residence in March. And Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav is under scrutiny for making overtly communal remarks at a VHP event—a violation that has drawn condemnation, but little action.
Despite 55 Rajya Sabha MPs backing the impeachment motion against Justice Yadav, the process remains stalled. Justice Varma, too, awaits final action when Parliament reconvenes. The slow pace raises unsettling questions about political expediency and institutional resistance to self-cleansing.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE RESPONDS
On June 26, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai addressed a judicial conference in the UK with refreshing candour. “Instances of corruption and misconduct in the judiciary have a negative impact on public confidence,” he acknowledged. The real test, he said, lies in how swiftly and transparently such cases are handled.
He also touched on the thorny issue of judges seeking government appointments after retirement—a practice that blurs the lines of judicial independence. His remarks pointedly referenced former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, who became a Rajya Sabha MP, and Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who resigned to enter politics.
SHADOWS FROM THE PAST
Justice Yashwant Varma is no stranger to controversy. In 2018, the CBI listed him as the 10th accused in a Rs 97.85 crore loan fraud while he was a director at Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. No action followed. In another corruption case, a judge in Satara allegedly demanded a bribe to grant bail. ACB requested arrest clearance from the Bombay High Court—yet another case stuck in procedural limbo.
The CBI has also investigated former Allahabad High Court judge SN Shukla—twice—once for disproportionate assets, another for granting favourable rulings in exchange for bribes. Despite indictments and recommendations for impeachment by two successive CJIs, Shukla retired quietly in 2020.
A CULTURE OF SILENCE
Critics point out a troubling pattern: unlike politicians and bureaucrats, judges are almost never prosecuted. Between 2017 and 2021, more than 1,600 complaints were filed against judges. But since the in-house mechanism is confidential, no one knows how many were even investigated. A 1991 Supreme Court ruling allows prosecution of judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act—but only with the chief justice’s prior approval. That firewall has rarely been breached.
CASE FILES: A HISTORY OF IMPUNITY
Some of the most infamous cases of judicial misconduct include:
- Justice V Ramaswami (1993): Found guilty on 11 charges of misappropriation. Impeachment failed as Congress abstained.
- Justice PD Dinakaran (2009): Resigned mid-process after disproportionate asset allegations.
- Justice K Veeraswami: Accused of amassing wealth beyond known income. Delayed trial until death.
- Justice IM Quddusi: Arrested for brokering Supreme Court cases. Secured bail; trial still pending.
The judiciary’s reluctance to discipline its own has raised calls for reforms—including a legally mandated body to investigate complaints independently.
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Former judges have not held back. Justice Venkataramiah, on retirement in 1989, claimed the judiciary had been compromised by “lavish parties and whisky bottles.” Justice Bharucha, in 2001, said bluntly that “20 percent of Indian judges are corrupt.” Justice Markandey Katju has repeatedly alleged political interference in judicial appointments, including during UPA rule. The central government once even pushed for an inquiry against CJI Balakrishnan for alleged disproportionate assets. It fizzled out.
RESTORING FAITH
CJI Gavai ended his speech with a vision: a judiciary that not only dispenses justice, but is seen to do so. To that end, Supreme Court judges now disclose assets online and livestream Constitution bench hearings.Still, trust can only be rebuilt through visible action on ethical breaches.
India’s courts are slow—ranking 131st out of 142 in global judicial speed. This delay fosters corruption. But there’s hope: a Gallup poll shows Indians have greater faith in their judiciary than Americans or Britons.
That faith, however, will be squandered if the current crisis is met with more silence. A functioning democracy cannot afford judges who appear above accountability. The robes must be white—but they must also be clean.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine
The post Judging the Judges appeared first on India Legal.