Judicial Accountability: Above the Law?

 The discovery of a substantial amount of cash at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court has raised serious questions about judicial accountability and the integrity of India’s legal system. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s recent remarks highlighting the need to revisit the Supreme Court’s 1991 judgment in the K Veeraswami case, which mandates prior sanction to prosecute judges, underscore a growing concern: are judges being treated as above the law? The delay in lodging an FIR, the lack of transparency in the investigation, and the judge’s flimsy explanation that he was unaware of how the money appeared in his house are deeply troubling. These developments suggest a systemic failure to hold the judiciary accountable, departing from established legal norms.

Dhankhar’s assertion that the criminal justice system should operate uniformly for all individuals, including judges, is rational and timely. The Veeraswami judgment, while aimed at protecting judicial independence, has arguably created a shield that allows misconduct to go unchecked. The Vice-President’s criticism of the in-house committee investigating the cash discovery case, questioning its constitutional validity and transparency, highlights the inadequacy of such mechanisms. When compared to how similar cases involving public servants or politicians are handled, the special treatment accorded to judges becomes glaringly apparent. The absence of an FIR months after the incident, coupled with the committee’s questionable actions like seizing electronic equipment from witnesses, further erodes public trust.

The issue is compounded by another systemic flaw: the prevalence of judicial dynasties in India. A significant proportion of judges appointed to higher courts have parents or close relatives who served as justices. This trend fosters an insular culture where professional bonds and familial ties may overshadow accountability. Such an environment risks creating a protective circle where lapses, regardless of gravity, are downplayed or ignored. The reluctance to act decisively in the cash discovery case fuels suspicions that the judiciary operates as a closed club, immune to the scrutiny faced by other public officials.

The broader question Dhankhar raises is whether the judiciary, tasked with upholding the rule of law, is itself adhering to it. The principle that no one is above the law is foundational to democracy. If judges are exempt from swift and transparent investigations, it undermines public confidence in the legal system. The Vice-President’s call for an “in-house regulatory mechanism” that is accountable and expeditious is a step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by legislative and institutional reforms to ensure impartiality. 

India’s judiciary is at a crossroads. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial impunity. The Veeraswami judgment must be revisited to strike a balance between protecting judges from frivolous complaints and ensuring they are answerable for misconduct.