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

  • Post category:polity

Relevance: Mains- GS2-SEC1; Prelims: Appointment of HC Judges, Collegium system

Introduction

A recent recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium to transfer Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, following reports of unaccounted cash found at his residence amid a fire incident, has brought the debate on judicial transparency and accountability into sharp focus. The opaque handling of the situation—marked by silence from the judiciary and law enforcement—raises serious concerns about the limitations of the collegium system, especially in cases of perceived judicial impropriety.

Understanding the Collegium System and Judicial Appointments

The collegium system in India is a mechanism evolved through judicial decisions, not a product of legislation or constitutional text. It involves the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. For High Court appointments, the collegium comprises the CJI and two senior-most judges, in consultation with the High Court Collegium. The President of India formally appoints judges, but the recommendations of the collegium are binding following the Second and Third Judges Cases. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was created through a constitutional amendment in 2014 to replace the collegium system, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 on grounds of judicial independence.

The Yashwant Varma Episode: A Triggering Case Study

A fire incident at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, reportedly led to the discovery of unaccounted cash. In response, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed his transfer to another High Court without making any public clarification on the allegations. The Delhi High Court Chief Justice submitted a report to the CJI ahead of the decision, but the contents of the report remain undisclosed. The episode has led to widespread speculation, with Vice President Dhankhar stating that had it involved a politician, it would have been addressed “immediately.”

Judicial Impropriety: Definition and Concerns

Judicial impropriety refers to conduct that erodes the public’s trust in the impartiality, independence, or ethical integrity of a judge. This may include unexplained wealth or cash reserves, bias or partisanship, violation of ethical duties or delay in discharging responsibilities. The absence of any formal inquiry or statement in this case, and the preference for internal administrative action (i.e., transfer), underscores the inadequacy of mechanisms to deal with such cases effectively.

Limitations of the Collegium System

  • Lack of Transparency: The collegium system operates in complete secrecy, offering no official reasoning for appointments or transfers. The Varma case further underscores how this secrecy can erode public confidence.
  • Absence of Institutional Accountability: There is no independent authority to investigate allegations of misconduct by judges. Transfer is used as a tool to address controversy, rather than a transparent inquiry or disciplinary action.
  • Opaque Decision-Making: Collegium resolutions often avoid mentioning the real cause behind decisions. In this case, although the transfer followed a controversial incident, it has not been linked officially to it.
  • No Mechanism for Public Grievance Redressal: Citizens or litigants have no formal platform to raise concerns about judicial ethics or performance. The system is purely internal and exclusionary.

Consequences and Institutional Silence

The absence of a clear statement from police or fire services, and the High Court’s lack of acknowledgment, reflects a concerning trend of information suppression. The collegium’s silence on potential misconduct contributes to the perception of judges being “above scrutiny.” The case has also sparked public discourse in Parliament, with demands for reforms in judicial oversight.

Way Forward: Reforming Judicial Accountability

  • Independent Judicial Oversight Body: Create a Judicial Complaints Commission or a National Judicial Ethics Board for inquiring into misconduct independently.
  • Transparency in Collegium Functioning: Collegium decisions should be accompanied by publicly accessible reasons, especially in controversial cases.
  • Revisiting NJAC with Safeguards: A reformed version of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, balancing judicial independence with external accountability, can be reintroduced.
  • Time-bound Ethical Investigation Mechanism: Any allegation involving impropriety should lead to a swift, time-bound probe, ideally monitored by retired judges or an independent tribunal.
  • Codification of Judicial Conduct and Ethics: There should be a legally binding Code of Conduct for Judges, similar to models followed in the UK and US.

Conclusion

The Justice Varma episode is not just an isolated matter of transfer but a case study in institutional opacity and unaddressed ethical concerns. The limitations of the collegium system in ensuring transparent and accountable judicial functioning have become increasingly apparent. Strengthening public confidence in the judiciary requires not just internal vigilance but also structured reforms that balance independence with institutional accountability.

Tags: , , , , ,