With over five crore pending cases, opaque judicial appointments, and weak accountability, India’s justice system urgently needs reforms to restore public trust

Recently, in March 2025, a cash scandal has rocked the Delhi High Court when a fire at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence reportedly uncovered a large stash of cash, estimated by some to be as high as Rs 50 crore. It is worth trying to understand whether this is a rare case, or is it endemic. Let us recall a few other cases.

One significant case involved Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. In 2011, he became the first Indian judge to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha, for misappropriation of funds. Sen was accused of diverting approximately Rs 33 lakh while serving as a court-appointed receiver in a legal dispute, retaining the funds for personal use even after his elevation to the judiciary. He resigned before the Lok Sabha could impeach him. There was no criminal prosecution post-resignation.

A 2012 RTI query revealed he retained post-retirement benefits, as no constitutional provision barred judges from resigning before impeachment completion.

Another prominent instance is the 2009 cash-at-judge’s-door scandal involving Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A bag containing Rs 15 lakh (was allegedly delivered to her residence, intended as a bribe to influence a case. Initially misdelivered to another judge, the incident sparked a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It appears the trial is continuing. In 2010, former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan and his son stirred controversy by alleging in a Supreme Court affidavit that eight of the previous 16 Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt. This was in support of his son Prashant Bhushan who had stated that there was corruption at the highest levels of judiciary.

While, he did not provide detailed evidence in public, the statement pointed to a perceived systemic issue at the highest levels. This claim was followed by contempt proceedings against the Bhushans. The court did not take the case to any conclusion. The 2012 “cash-for-bail” scandal implicated CBI Special Judge Talluri Pattabhirama Rao, who was arrested for accepting a Rs  five crore bribe to grant bail to mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy in an illegal mining case.

This incident exposed corruption in the lower judiciary, where delays and discretionary powers often create opportunities for illicit payments. Following an adverse report, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court.

While official investigations are ongoing as of March 21, 2025, the incident has fueled public outrage and debates about accountability, with critics arguing that a mere transfer is insufficient punishment for such alleged corruption.

This has the effect of transferring corruption from one court to another by judicial action, apart from trivialising the criminal offence. Other notable cases include the 2019 CBI investigation into Justice Narain Shukla of the Allahabad High Court, accused of receiving illegal gratification to favour a medical college in a case. He received no punishment.

These instances reflect a range of corrupt practices. Systemic factors like the massive backlog of cases — over five crore pending in the various Courts — exacerbate corruption. Litigants often pay bribes to secure favourable hearing dates or expedite orders. The lack of transparency in judicial appointments, inadequate accountability mechanisms and the judiciary’s resistance to external oversight further compound the issue. For example, the in-house mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct, overseen by the Chief Justice of India, has been criticised as opaque and ineffective, with no FIR permitted against a judge without the CJI’s approval.

The courts are not too enthusiastic about providing information in RTI. These cases and underlying issues illustrate that corruption in the Indian judiciary spans both lower and higher courts, driven by a mix of individual greed, systemic inefficiencies, and weak enforcement of ethical standards. Public perception, as noted in Transparency International’s 2013 Global Corruption Barometer (45 per cent of surveyed households viewed the judiciary as corrupt), continues to reflect this trend.

The delays and adjournments in the courts make a fertile ground for corruption and arbitrariness. It is very easy and vitally necessary to correct these.  

Here are three easy actions:

a) The average increase in the disposal of cases is about three to five per cent. The average vacancies in judicial appointments is over 20 per cent. If vacancies in sanctioned positions are filled, delays and backlogs would become history.

b) Article 14 guarantees equality before law. This is violated daily in our Courts. About 25per cent of cases are decided in less than a year whereas about 40 per cent languish for over three years.

The simple principle of first in first out is violated widely.

c) Adjournments are a major bane of our courts. The law does not permit an adjournment because a lawyer is in another court. Most adjournments flout the law. We lack the ability if punishing wrongdoers if they have power or money.

We can become amongst the top countries in terms of rule of law by very simple actions. Without this we cannot attain the position of a modern, advanced nation.

(The writer is former Central Information Commissioner. Views expressed are personal)