What's New

THE JUDICIARY’S ‘BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE’ MOMENT

Relevance: GS 2 – Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Why in the news?

• An accidental fire in the outhouse of Justice Yashwant Varma’s official bungalow in New Delhi led to the discovery of several sacks containing high-value currency notes (₹500), some of which were partially burnt.
• The incident raised suspicions of possible misconduct or corruption, prompting calls for a thorough investigation.
• The case has reignited debates on the need for stronger mechanisms to address corruption and misconduct in the judiciary without compromising its independence.

Justice Yashwant Varma Case: Key Developments

The Incident:

• An accidental fire broke out in the outhouse of Justice Yashwant Varma’s official bungalow in New Delhi while he was out of town.
• The fire department discovered several sacks of high-value currency notes (₹500), some of which were partially burnt.
• A member of the police or fire department recorded a video while firemen were attempting to douse the fire.

Police and Judicial Response:

• The following evening, the Delhi Police Chief reported the incident to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, where Justice Varma serves as a senior judge.
• The High Court Chief Justice escalated the matter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• The CJI convened a Collegium meeting, which decided to repatriate Justice Varma to his parent court, the High Court of Allahabad.

Justice Varma’s Defense:

• Justice Varma denied storing any money in the room where the fire occurred.
• He claimed the incident might be part of a conspiracy against him.
• His statement further added to the complexity and controversy surrounding the case.

Inquiry and Transparency Measures

• Public Outcry: The incident caused a major public uproar, prompting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to convene additional Collegium meetings.
• In-House Inquiry: The CJI ordered an in-house inquiry, assigning a three-judge committee to investigate the case.

• Evidence Collection: The CJI sought the call records of Justice Varma and his staff for the previous six months.
• Public Disclosure: In a move towards transparency, the CJI released all information related to the incident, including the video of the currency notes being discovered, into the public domain.
• Suspension of Judicial Work: The CJI advised the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to refrain from assigning any judicial work to Justice Varma until the inquiry is completed.
• Awaiting Inquiry Findings: Although Justice Varma’s explanation appears unconvincing, the legal community awaits the committee’s report, which is expected to clarify the incident and reveal the truth.

Government’s Response and NJAC Revival Push

• Political Opportunity: The public outcry over the Justice Yashwant Varma case has given the government an opportunity to challenge the judiciary’s autonomy, particularly regarding judicial appointments.
• NJAC Revival Discussions: The Vice-President of India (also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) has invited political leaders from both the government and the Opposition to discuss the revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act.
• NJAC Composition: The Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, proposed the formation of an appointment committee –

• Government Influence: The Act also placed the NJAC secretariat under the Law Ministry, raising concerns about government interference in judicial appointments.
• Supreme Court’s Ruling: In a landmark judgment, seven judges of the Supreme Court ruled that the NJAC Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution by threatening the independence of the judiciary.
• Judicial Independence Concerns: The Court reasoned that the NJAC would give the government substantial influence over judicial appointments, which could erode judicial independence.
• Constitutional Amendment Invalidated: Despite being introduced through a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court declared the NJAC Act unconstitutional and invalid.

Government’s Game Plan and Judicial Appointments

Interference in Appointments:

• Despite the law granting the Collegium of the Supreme Court the power of judicial selection, the Narendra Modi government has frequently interfered with appointments by delaying or withholding notifications.

Tactic of Delaying Recommendations:

• The government has repeatedly sat on Collegium recommendations for years without providing any response or notifying the appointments.
• Even when forced to respond by returning names with objections, the government has refused to notify several appointments, even after the Collegium unanimously reiterated its choices.

Selective Notification:

• The government has been swift in notifying the appointments of judges it favors, while stalling those deemed ‘inconvenient’ or independent-minded.

Impact on Judicial Independence

• Erosion of Judicial Autonomy: The government’s delaying tactics and selective approvals have significantly weakened the independence of the judiciary.
• Compromised Appointments: To push through its recommendations, the Collegium has sometimes compromised by appointing judges favored by the government, resulting in:
• The inclusion of judges committed to the government’s Hindutva ideology.
• The selection of weaker judges unable to resist government influence.
• Judicial Independence at Risk: This trend has gradually eroded judicial autonomy, making the judiciary more vulnerable to political influence.

Exploiting the Justice Varma Case

• Power Grab Attempt: The government is using the Justice Varma incident as a pretext to push for greater control over judicial appointments.
• NJAC Revival Threat: By reviving discussions on the NJAC, the government seeks to gain influence over judicial selections, further threatening the independence of the judiciary.
• Potential Consequences: If successful, this move would:
• Weaken judicial impartiality, making the judiciary more susceptible to executive pressure.
• Undermine the rule of law and the system of checks and balances.

Call for Public and Political Resistance

• Need for Vigilance: Given the government’s heavy-handed use of enforcement agencies and alleged disregard for fundamental rights, it is crucial for public opinion and the Opposition to recognize and resist the government’s attempt to control judicial appointments.
• Flaws in the Collegium System: While the Collegium system itself is flawed due to its lack of transparency and susceptibility to nepotism, the solution lies in reforming the system — not handing over greater control to the government.
• Judicial Overload Issue: A key flaw in the current system is that sitting judges on the Collegium are already overburdened with judicial responsibilities, leaving them with limited time for appointment decisions, contributing to inefficiencies.

Judicial Appointments and Corruption Issues

• Volume of Selections: Each year, around 100 judges need to be appointed to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Lack of Comprehensive Selection Process:

• Ideally, at least 1,000 candidates should be evaluated for their relative merits and demerits to ensure fair selection.
• However, the current system lacks clear criteria and standardized methods to assess candidates.
• Corruption in the Judiciary: The Justice Varma incident has exposed the problem of corruption in the Indian judiciary, which demands structural reform.
• Ineffective Impeachment Process: The Constitution currently provides for impeachment as the only mechanism to remove corrupt judges.
• However, this process is impractical and politicized:
• It requires the signatures of 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) to initiate.
• It concludes with a vote in both Houses of Parliament, making it vulnerable to political influence.
• As a result, no judge has ever been successfully impeached in India, despite widespread public knowledge of corruption in the higher judiciary.

Proposed Solutions

Need for a Judicial Appointments Commission:

• The solution lies in creating a full-time Judicial Appointments Commission that is:
• Composed of retired judges and eminent public figures who are completely independent of the government.
• Supported by a dedicated secretariat under its control.
• This commission would ensure transparent and merit-based selection of judges.

Advocacy for Reform:

• This is in line with what the Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms (CJAR) has long advocated for.

Independent Commission:

• To address corruption effectively, a full-time Judicial Complaints Commission should be established, comprising five independent members, free from government and judiciary influence.

Complaint Handling Mechanism:

• The commission would receive complaints from the public against judges of the higher judiciary. Upon finding a prima facie case, it could:
  • Order an investigation.
  • Conduct a trial of the judge through another committee, similar to a judges inquiry committee.
• Final Decision Authority: The commission would have the power to decide the appropriate action against the judge.
• Its decision would be final, with judicial review allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
• No Parliamentary Involvement: The process would bypass Parliament, reducing political interference and ensuring swift action against judicial misconduct.

Key Benefits of the Proposed Reforms

• Transparent Judicial Appointments: A full-time Judicial Appointments Commission would ensure a transparent, merit-based selection process, free from government influence.
• Enhanced Accountability: The Judicial Complaints Commission would provide a dedicated mechanism to address judicial misconduct and corruption effectively.
• Reduced Political Interference: Bypassing Parliament in disciplinary matters would prevent the politicization of the process.
• Swift and Independent Action: The complaints commission would have the authority to investigate and decide on cases independently, ensuring quicker action.
• Judicial Autonomy Preserved: By keeping the government and Parliament out of the complaints process, the independence of the judiciary would be safeguarded.
• Finality of Decisions: The commission’s decisions would be binding, with only limited judicial review in exceptional cases, ensuring stability and consistency.
• Improved Public Confidence: A transparent and efficient system would restore public trust in the judiciary’s integrity and fairness.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-judiciarys-between-a-rock-and-hard-place-moment/article69382701.ece

Mains Question:

Discuss the challenges in the current judicial appointments and impeachment process in India. Suggest reforms to enhance transparency, accountability, and independence of the judiciary. (250 words)