In India, judges appoint themselves, investigate themselves and refuse all attempts at accountability: How reforms have been blocked over the years
Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court has been embroiled in controversy since an enormous amount of unaccounted cash was reportedly discovered after a fire at his residence. After the fire was extinguished, four to five partially burned sacks containing “remains of Indian currency were found in the said room,” according to a police report released by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme Court Collegium has now decided, following two meetings on 20th and 24th March, to return him to his parent Allahabad High Court.
Updated: Mar 26, 2025, 05:25 IST
Senior advocate Ujjwal Nikam, meanwhile, stated that a transfer or suspension was insufficient and asked Parliament to start criminal charges and, if required, impeachment procedures. On the other hand, Allahabad High Court lawyers have announced an indefinite strike in protest of the ruling. Interestingly, the matter has been shrouded in uncertain secrecy and critical concerns have yet to be addressed.
India's judiciary operates under a system where judges are primarily appointed through the collegium system, an internal mechanism wherein senior judges nominate and approve candidates for judicial positions. This method has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability, as it allows judges to effectively appoint their successors without external oversight.
Efforts to introduce reforms aimed at enhancing judicial accountability have faced significant obstacles over the years. For instance, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, intended to establish enforceable standards for judicial conduct and a framework for addressing complaints against judges, encountered delays and was ultimately set aside due to conflicts with the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
The judiciary's internal mechanisms for self-regulation, such as in-house committees, have also been deemed inadequate. Critics argue that these bodies lack transparency and effectiveness, often resulting in minimal consequences for judicial misconduct. The absence of external oversight further exacerbates concerns about impartiality and accountability within the judicial system.
Furthermore, India's stringent contempt of court laws have been cited as barriers to openly discussing or investigating allegations of corruption within the judiciary. These laws can deter whistleblowers and journalists from exposing misconduct, thereby contributing to a culture of impunity.
The cumulative effect of these factors—a self-appointing judiciary, ineffective self-regulation, and restrictive contempt laws—has led to a system where judges operate with limited accountability. This has resulted in public skepticism and calls for comprehensive reforms to ensure greater transparency and integrity within India's judicial institutions.