Critically examine the recent controversy around judicial accountability and the revival of NJAC debate in light of the incident involving Justice Yashwant Varma.

  • Post category:polity

Question: Critically examine the recent controversy around judicial accountability and the revival of NJAC debate in light of the incident involving Justice Yashwant Varma.

Introduction

The discovery of large amounts of currency and a fire at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma (Delhi High Court) has once again sparked concerns around judicial propriety and transparency in India. The Supreme Court, in response, constituted a three-member panel for an internal inquiry. Simultaneously, the Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has reignited the debate on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), hinting at the judiciary’s reluctance to embrace accountability.

The Current Controversy

  • The incident involves the recovery of burnt currency notes from the house of a sitting judge and a fire incident that went unreported to police for over eight hours.
  • A Supreme Court-appointed committee led by senior judges has been tasked to investigate the matter, signalling an attempt to maintain transparency.
  • However, Dhankhar’s remarks point to a systemic loophole: the absence of external oversight in judicial appointments and disciplinary proceedings.

What is the NJAC?

  • NJAC was a constitutional amendment (99th) enacted in 2014 to reform judicial appointments by including members from outside the judiciary.
  • It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 on the grounds of violating the basic structure doctrine — specifically judicial independence.

Revival of the NJAC Debate

  • The Vice President stated that “things would have been different” if the NJAC mechanism had been in place.
  • Floor leaders from both Houses were invited to deliberate on the broader need for judicial accountability.
  • Several opposition parties (Congress, RJD, TMC, CPI(M), DMK, Shiv Sena) and ruling allies (NDA) participated, showing bipartisan concern.

Arguments for Revisiting Judicial Accountability

  • Lack of transparency in Collegium appointments has raised public distrust.
  • Growing incidents of misconduct or perceived misconduct among judges necessitate institutional checks.
  • The government argues for a more participatory system in selecting and scrutinising higher judiciary.
Judicial Transparency and Accountability

Concerns with NJAC Revival

  • Judicial independence could be compromised if political interference becomes institutionalised.
  • Judiciary has been historically resistant to any mechanism that might dilute its exclusive domain.

Conclusion

While the internal inquiry is a welcome step towards ensuring transparency, the larger issue of judicial accountability remains unresolved. A middle ground that ensures independence while mandating transparency and accountability is essential. As Vice President Dhankhar rightly noted, India stands at a constitutional crossroads, and any reform must preserve public trust in the judiciary while safeguarding its autonomy.

Judicial Impropriety and the Limitations of the Collegium System – A Contemporary Perspective

Quote:
“There is no constitutional democracy without transparency; there is no transparency without accountability.”

Data Point:
The NJAC was passed by the Parliament with near unanimity and ratified by 16 states before being struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

⚠️ Copyright Disclaimer
This content is the intellectual property of its creator and is protected under applicable copyright laws. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, redistribution, or sale of this material in any form is strictly prohibited and may lead to legal action.
The material is intended solely for the personal use of enrolled students or subscribers. If you wish to use or refer to this content for educational or commercial purposes, please seek prior written permission.

Tags: , ,