Assessment of the judges: Reinterpreting of India's legal proceedings according to the corruption scandal of Delhi – Lawyer – Comment – Commentary

As Justice Dy Chandrachud, former CJI, aptly explained: “Trust in the court proceedings is based on the trust that his written word generates.”

On March 14, 2025 a Fire broke out In the Delhi Supreme Court's Housing Billalow, Judge Yashwant Varma. After the authorities deleted the flames, they supposedly discovered a significant sum of cash in one of the rooms. This discovery lit a national debate on judicial integrity and the current legal mechanisms to combat misconduct allegations within the higher judiciary. During the incident, the incident shocked deeper concerns about the treatment of such cases and whether existing legal systems really ensure the accountability obligation.

The role of the college system

The five-judge college of the Supreme Court recognized The not taken into account for money that civil servants discovered in the residence of Justice Varma and unanimously decided to transfer him to his parents' Court of Justice in Allahabad. The Supreme Court later defended its decision and explained that transfers are routine administrative decisions and that its decision to transfer the judiciary Varma had nothing to do with the incident. Justice Varma was previously transferred to the Supreme Court of Delhi by the Supreme Court of Allahabad in October 2021.

The college system in India is intended to minimize the over -control of the executive and increase the independence of the judiciary by monitoring the appointment and transfer of judges. However, such incidents asks whether a mere transfer is an appropriate answer to misconduct allegations by a judge.

The internal mechanism

During the consultations in the college, some judges argued that the severity of the allegations justified more than a transfer, since the abuse of the situation could undermine the credibility and public trust of the judiciary into the legal system. In response to this, the Supreme Court referred to its internal proceedings (in 1999- to combating potential misconduct or corruption allegations against judges of the Constitutional Court.

The origin of these procedures can be attributed to the groundbreaking case of C. Ravichandran Iyer against Justice am Bhattachharjee (1995) And the recommendations of a five -member committee founded in 1997 to create a structured approach to dealing with such allegations.

If the highest judge of India (CJI), a highest judge of the Supreme Court or the President, received a complaint, the CJI initially requested an answer from the accused judge. If the CJI considers the accused judge to be unsatisfactory, the CJI will appoint a committee of inquiry – which is involved in a judge of the Supreme Court and two Supreme Court for an investigation.

In contrast to ordinary criminal proceedings, a first information report (FIR) cannot be registered against a seated judge on a police station. If the committee of inquiry determines that the accused judge has committed misconduct, the possible consequences range from a mere warning to recommendations to resignation, voluntary retirement or the office procedure in the Indian parliament.

A rare and challenging process of survey

The Constitution of India provides for the election of the judges of the Supreme Court in accordance with Articles 124 (4) and 124 (5) and the judges of the High Court according to Article 217. However, a special majority of the entire house members as well as at least two thirds of those present and votes require the elevation.

So far, officials against the seated Supreme Court or judge of the Supreme Court in India have been initiated four times, none of which was successful. The first was in 1993 when Justice V. Ramaswami faces an unsuccessful elevation after an application in Lok Sabha did not exist due to the lack of votes.

Eighteen years later in 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen from Calcutta High Court resigned after the Rajya Sabha had submitted an application for office against him for financial misconduct – the only example in which office survey in the upper house was successful. In the same year, the Supreme Court of Sikkim's Supreme Court resigned, PD Dinakaran, resigned before his office procedure in relation to corruption and abuse of the judicial office.

In 2015, an application for office against Justice JB Pardiwala from the Supreme Court of Gujarat was reserved for its controversial comments – to confirm the policy of the campaign for historically marginalized communities – which hinder the progress of India. In recent times, in 2017, applications for the office company against Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy from the High Courts Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were moved. In March 2018, opposition parties tried to select an application for incentives against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Judicial misconduct and the challenge of proving allegations

While the elevation remains a rare and politically accused process, allegations of misconduct of judicial misconduct are far more common than the few known cases that have reached the parliament.

In 2008, a top -class cash with Justice Nirmaljit Kaur from the Supreme Court of Justice, who was involved in the judiciary in Punjab and Haryana, brought judicial corruption into public spotlight. A package with RS. 15 Lakhs, supposedly for Justice Nirmal Yadav, led to legal proceedings against them. After a fourteen-year legal dispute, Justice Nirmal Yadav was finally freed in on March 29, 2025-a longer struggle, in which the difficulty in the existence of the allegations against judges and the securing of convicts was presented. Similar to the incident with justice Varma, this case raises a greater question: If the judiciary is accused against a judge, does it have a enforceable legal mechanism to relieve or punish, and if so, can he ensure that justice reaches the public and can be achieved in the eyes of the public?

Restoration of public trust: Where do we go from here?

The judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitutional principles, bourgeois freedoms and the rule of law, but repeated allegations against the chair – either proven or unproven – require public belief in the institution. After all, justice is not just about legal explanation; It's about public perception. It is about the conviction of the people that the system will act quite, impartial and transparent, even if one is examined.

The biggest challenge is here. During the well -intentioned mechanism, the current internal mechanism largely works behind closed doors. Although the constitution was anchored in the constitution, the office will never lead to the elimination of a judge. Transfers do a convenient administrative measure, but little to consider concerns about the accountability obligation. Then what is the way forward?

Maybe the judiciary has to take more transparency. The public should not have the feeling that accusations against judges disappear in a black hole in order to never be spoken again. A more transparent examination process, the stricter enforcement of ethical codes and the willingness to recognize and act against misconduct even at the highest level – against misconduct – is of crucial importance for the accountability of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary means that it is isolated from public control, just as the accountability obligation should not be confused with disorders.

The case justice Yashwant Varma, like others before, is not just about a judge. It reflects the system itself. The actual question is not whether justice is exposed to Varma consequences, but whether the judiciary will recognize this moment for what it is – an opportunity to increase the public belief in its integrity.

Professor Dr. Arvind P. Bhanu is a professor of law and research and additional director at the Amity Law School, Noida and extraordinary professor at the University of Adelaide. Kavya Tyagi is a lawyer at the Amity Law School, Noida and research assistant of Prof. Dr. Arvind P. Bhanu.