Brig (retd) GB Reddi
The recent discovery of a massive amount of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma has sent shockwaves through India’s legal and political circles. This revelation not only raises troubling questions about corruption within the judiciary but also casts doubt on past rulings that may have favoured criminals seeking bail. More alarmingly, the response from the Supreme Court Collegium—a mere transfer of the implicated judge—exposes the judiciary’s unwillingness to hold itself accountable.
Justice Varma, who was transferred from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court in 2021, was reportedly out of town when a fire broke out at his residence. As first responders extinguished the flames, they stumbled upon large sums of cash hidden inside a room. The discovery was promptly reported to senior officials, who, in turn, informed Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The Collegium, the powerful body responsible for judicial appointments and transfers, swiftly decided to move Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court.
But is this merely an administrative reshuffle disguised as punishment? If a judge in any other democracy were caught with unexplained cash, the response would likely involve an independent probe, potential impeachment, or even criminal prosecution. Instead, India’s judiciary appears to have treated this as an internal inconvenience rather than a full-blown scandal.
The Indian judiciary has long resisted external oversight, arguing that interference from the legislature or executive would threaten its independence. However, this case exposes a deeper problem: a lack of self-regulation. The Collegium system, which operates with little transparency, is often accused of protecting its own. The decision to transfer rather than investigate Justice Varma only strengthens this perception.
This is not an isolated incident. Corruption allegations against judges have surfaced in the past, but few have resulted in meaningful action. The judiciary’s reluctance to subject itself to scrutiny stands in stark contrast to its willingness to hold the legislature and executive accountable. If the courts can question the legality of government actions, why should they be immune from similar scrutiny?
India’s judicial backlog runs into the millions. Cases drag on for decades, often leaving litigants waiting for justice long after their grievances have lost relevance. If corruption is as deeply entrenched in the judiciary as some fear, could it be a contributing factor to these delays? Are judges, emboldened by the lack of accountability, making decisions based on personal interests rather than legal merit?
The judiciary’s credibility is at stake. If it wishes to restore public trust, the Collegium must implement stricter measures against judicial misconduct. This includes amending existing guidelines to ensure that any judge found with illicit cash is not merely transferred but immediately suspended, investigated, and, if found guilty, dismissed with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Additionally, investigative agencies should be allowed to conduct periodic surprise audits of judges’ assets. If the judiciary truly believes it is above suspicion, it should have nothing to fear from such transparency. Without such measures, the public will be left questioning whether the judiciary is indeed a “holy cow” or just another institution riddled with corruption.
The discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s residence is more than just a scandal—it is a litmus test for India’s legal system. How the judiciary responds will determine whether it upholds the principles of justice or remains a protected fortress of unchecked power.
