Why in the News?

Social media has been flooded with memes, and one of the most popular ones says, “For the first time, a fire brigade has started more fires than it put out.” The truth is, the fire is still burning. This perfectly reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Delhi High Court judge and the half-burnt currency notes case.

What key issues arise from the Delhi High Court Judge controversy over half-burnt currency notes?

• Allegations of Corruption in the Judiciary: The discovery of half-burnt currency notes at a judge’s residence raises suspicions of financial misconduct and corruption within the judiciary. Example: The Justice P.D. Dinakaran case, where allegations of land grabbing and corruption led to his resignation before impeachment proceedings.
• Lack of Immediate Legal Action and Accountability: Unlike other public officials who face direct investigations, the judge in question was merely repatriated to his parent High Court, reflecting a selective approach to judicial accountability. Example: Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court was impeached for financial misconduct, but only after prolonged proceedings, highlighting delays in judicial accountability.
• Opacity in Internal Inquiry Mechanisms: The judiciary relies on internal probes rather than independent investigations, raising concerns about transparency and impartiality in handling misconduct. Example: The former CJI Ranjan Gogoi sexual harassment case, where an internal Supreme Court panel cleared him without an external review, leading to public outcry.

Why has the Collegium system of judicial appointments in India faced criticism over the years?

• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The Collegium functions through closed-door deliberations without publicly disclosing selection criteria or reasons for appointments and rejections. Example: In 2019, Justice Akil Kureshi’s elevation was delayed without a clear explanation, raising concerns over executive influence and opaque decision-making.
• Nepotism and Judicial Dynasties: The system has been criticized for favoring judges’ relatives and individuals with strong connections rather than selecting candidates purely on merit. Example: The presence of multiple second-generation judges in the Supreme Court, such as Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (son of former CJI Y.V. Chandrachud), has fueled debates over judicial nepotism.
• Lack of Diversity and Inclusivity: The Collegium system has led to an underrepresentation of marginalized communities, women, and candidates from diverse backgrounds in the higher judiciary. Example: As of 2024, the percentage of women judges in the Supreme Court remains significantly low, with only three out of 34 judges being women.

How can the establishment of an Indian Judicial Service help address concerns regarding judicial accountability and transparency?

• Merit-Based and Transparent Selection Process: The IJS would ensure that judges are selected through a competitive examination, reducing nepotism and favoritism in judicial appointments. Example: Similar to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), where UPSC conducts open and merit-based recruitment, an IJS would create a level playing field for candidates from diverse backgrounds.
• Greater Diversity and Inclusivity in the Judiciary: A national-level selection system would bring in candidates from different social, economic, and regional backgrounds, making the judiciary more representative. Example: Currently, women and marginalized communities are underrepresented in the higher judiciary, but an IJS could help bridge this gap by ensuring equal opportunities.
• Stronger Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms: Judges recruited through IJS could be subjected to periodic performance reviews and disciplinary oversight, ensuring accountability and ethical conduct. Example: In Germany, judges are part of a structured civil service system with evaluation and accountability mechanisms, ensuring higher judicial standards.

Who would be responsible for conducting the recruitment process for the Indian Judicial Service?

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as the Conducting Authority: The UPSC, which already handles merit-based recruitment for civil services like IAS and IPS, could be entrusted with conducting exams for IJS to ensure transparency and fairness. Example: The Judicial Services Examination at the state level is conducted by State Public Service Commissions; a national-level IJS could follow the same model under UPSC.
• Supreme Court and High Courts for Selection Criteria and Oversight: The Supreme Court, in consultation with High Courts and legal experts, could frame eligibility criteria, syllabus, and selection methods to maintain judicial independence. Example: The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) proposal, discussed since the 1960s, suggested a recruitment system similar to UPSC but with judicial oversight to ensure fairness.
• Independent Judicial Commission for Monitoring and Appointments: An autonomous body, comprising retired judges, legal scholars, and judicial officers, could be set up to oversee appointments and address grievances. Example: Judicial Appointments Commissions exist in the UK, where an independent body handles judicial recruitment, preventing executive or political interference.

Way forward: 

• Balanced Judicial Appointments with Greater Transparency: Establish a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) that includes representatives from the judiciary, executive, and civil society to ensure a more transparent and accountable selection process.
• Strengthening Judicial Accountability Mechanisms: Implement periodic performance reviews and ethical oversight for judges, with an independent body monitoring judicial conduct and financial integrity.

Mains PYQ:

Question: Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. [UPSC 2017]

Linkage: Existing mechanism for judicial appointments and the debates surrounding it. The discussion on an IJS often arises as an alternative or complementary approach to the current system, aiming for greater transparency and potentially reducing the scope for concerns raised in the NJAC debate.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Why in the News?

On Friday (March 21, 2025), the Supreme Court stated that false information and rumours were being spread about an “incident” at the home of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, suggesting that this led to his transfer. The Court clarified that the transfer decision was unrelated to the incident.

What was the Supreme Court’s response to the reports regarding the incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence?

• Rejection of Misinformation: The Supreme Court dismissed media reports about a “huge pile of cash” being recovered during a fire at Justice Varma’s residence. Example: It stated that rumours and misinformation were being spread, clarifying that the reports were not verified facts.
• Clarification on Transfer Proposal: The Court confirmed that Justice Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was an independent decision, unrelated to the in-house enquiry into the incident. Example: It emphasized that the transfer process had been initiated separately and was being reviewed by the Collegium before the enquiry even began.
• Confidentiality of the Enquiry Process: The Supreme Court maintained that the in-house enquiry was confidential and aimed at preserving judicial integrity. Example: The Court cited the 2015 Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General, MP High Court judgment, which ensures fairness in such proceedings.

Why did the Supreme Court emphasize that the transfer proposal for Justice Yashwant Varma was independent of the in-house enquiry?

• To Prevent Misinterpretation of Judicial Transfers: The Supreme Court clarified that the transfer was part of routine administrative decisions, not a punitive action linked to the enquiry. Example: Justice Varma’s transfer was to his parent High Court (Allahabad), where he would be ninth in seniority, a common practice for judges.
• To Uphold the Collegium’s Credibility: The Court ensured that the Collegium’s decisions were based on judicial requirements, not external events. Example: The Collegium followed its standard procedure of consulting judges and the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts before deciding on the transfer.
• To Avoid Pre-Judgment of the Enquiry Outcome: If the transfer was seen as linked to the enquiry, it could imply guilt before a formal investigation was concluded. Example: The Court confirmed that the Delhi High Court Chief Justice had initiated the enquiry separately, even before the Collegium met on March 20, 2025.
• To Maintain Judicial Independence and Fairness: Judges must be free from undue influence, and linking transfers to allegations could undermine judicial autonomy. Example: The Court cited the in-house enquiry framework, which ensures that any probe follows due process before any action is taken.
• To Protect the Reputation of the Judiciary: Associating the transfer with allegations could harm the judge’s integrity and create unnecessary controversy. Example: The Supreme Court press note stressed that the transfer decision was made on administrative grounds, separate from any enquiry findings.

How does the in-house enquiry procedure against sitting High Court judges ensure fairness and prevent bias?

• Two-Stage Investigation Process: The procedure involves an initial assessment by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, followed by a deeper probe if required, ensuring a systematic and impartial review. Example: In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice first examined the allegations before forwarding a report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further action.
• Principles of Natural Justice: The accused judge is given a fair opportunity to present their defense before any decision is made, preventing arbitrary actions. Example: If the CJI determines a deeper probe is needed, a three-member committee (two Chief Justices and one High Court judge) is formed, ensuring multiple perspectives in the investigation.
• Confidentiality to Protect Integrity: The enquiry remains confidential to prevent media trials and undue reputational damage before conclusions are drawn. Example: The Supreme Court’s press note stated that the findings of the Delhi High Court’s in-house enquiry would be examined privately before deciding on further action.

Way forward: 

• Strengthening Transparency and Communication: The judiciary should proactively address misinformation by issuing timely clarifications and making non-confidential aspects of administrative decisions more accessible to prevent speculation and misinterpretation.
• Enhancing Institutional Safeguards: The in-house enquiry mechanism should be periodically reviewed to ensure procedural robustness, fairness, and adaptability while maintaining judicial integrity and independence.

Mains PYQ:

Question: “Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy”. Comment. (2023)

Reason: The proposed transfer of a High Court judge, especially amidst “rumours” touches upon the independence of the judiciary. While the Supreme Court clarifies the transfer is unrelated to the “incident” and in-house inquiry, questions about maintaining judicial independence in the face of potential external pressures or perceptions remain pertinent.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now