The Indian judiciary has long stood on a high pedestal, cloaked in the sanctity of impartiality and public trust. But what happens when that very institution becomes the breeding ground for rot? The recent revelations surrounding former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, whose residence was found stacked with unexplained cash—exposed only because of a fire—have ripped through the veil. Yet, even in the face of such damning evidence, the system seems reluctant to act with the urgency and transparency demanded by the Constitution and the public alike. The Constitution of India vests power in three pillars—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary—not to rule over one another but to ensure checks and balances. Article 50 of the Constitution envisions the separation of the judiciary from the executive, but nowhere does it say the judiciary is above scrutiny or law. Article 124(4) clearly lays out the procedure for the impeachment of a judge on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” The case of Justice Varma seems to meet that standard. Cash hoarded at a sitting judge’s home is not a lapse—it is a criminal breach of trust. But instead of prompt action, we witnessed yet another example of judicial shielding. The Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, reportedly gave Justice Yashwant Varma a discreet ultimatum—resign or face impeachment. Worse, this is the same CJI who, in the immediate aftermath of the fire and the massive cash haul, allegedly hesitated to even permit the registration of an FIR. Article 14 of the Constitution declares that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law.” If that’s the case, why has no criminal case been filed against Justice Varma yet? Any ordinary citizen caught hoarding such unexplained cash would have been instantly booked under a slew of stringent laws, including the Prevention of Corruption Act. Judicial reforms in India have been long overdue. The collegium system—opaque, unaccountable, and self-serving—has long resisted external oversight. Attempts by successive governments to reform the judiciary have been stonewalled under the pretense of “judicial independence.”
But independence cannot be a euphemism for immunity. Judiciary must be free, not from accountability, but from political and personal bias. And yet, the judiciary’s record in recent years betrays that very principle. Take the repeated granting of bail to high-profile accused, many of them powerful politicians, or the courts’ controversial delay in the Ayodhya verdict just before the 2019 general elections. Or worse still, its frequent meddling in the domain of the legislature and executive—be it through diktats on appointments in the Election Commission, or comments that subtly rewrite the roles of constitutional offices like the President or Governors. This isn’t judicial review; it is judicial overreach. Ironically, the judiciary often cites Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—to justify bail as a “rule” and jail as an “exception.” But where is that compassion when ordinary citizens languish in jails for years without trial? Where is that constitutional sanctity when a judge hoards cash and still walks free, protected by a legal fraternity that treats one of its own with kid gloves? Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, also the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, rightly hinted at impeachment if Justice Varma failed to resign. Yet the system seems content to let the matter fizzle out quietly. But this time, silence is not an option. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is serious about its zero-tolerance stance on corruption, it must walk the talk. The Parliament has the power under Article 124(4) to impeach judges. And more importantly, the executive must ensure the rule of law is applied uniformly. That means pushing for criminal prosecution of Justice Varma and probing the role of CJI Sanjiv Khanna for apparent dereliction of duty. The judiciary is meant to be the final recourse for justice. If it shields its own in the face of crime, it loses moral legitimacy. The Indian people deserve better. Not just from their elected leaders, but from those robed in the authority of justice. After all, if “all are equal before the law,” then no one—not even a judge—should be above it.
