Accidental recovery of a huge pile of cash recently from the residence of a Delhi High Court Judge, Yashwant Varma, has again triggered a debate about the corruption in the higher judiciary and failure of the system to check corruption among the members of the higher judiciary. An enquiry will reveal the truth regarding allegation of corruption on Justice Varma, but this is also a fact that time and again various judges of the Supreme Court and different High Courts have overtly indicated towards prevailing corruption in higher judiciary.
■ No Denial of Corruption in Higher Judiciary: The Judges themselves have admitted it.
P. Sathasivam, former Chief Justice of India, had stated in an interview, in June 2013: “I should fairly admit that the judiciary is not untouched by corruption’(The Hindu, 28 June,2013). The former Chief justice of India S. P. Bharucha, once stated that ‘20 percent of those manning the judiciary are corrupt. Removing corrupt judges in the subordinate judiciary is easy because it is under the disciplinary control of the High Courts. But it is difficult where the higher judiciary is concerned because the impeachment process is unworkable’.(The Hindustan Times, 17th February, 2002). Mr. Markandeya Katju, retired judge of the Supreme Court, and former Chairman of the Press Council of India, had also said, “My assessment is that 50% of the higher judiciary has become corrupt.” (The Hindustan Times, 28 September,2015). Whether the number of corrupt judges in the Higher judiciary hovers round the figure of 20 percent or 50 per cent ,but one thing is beyond a reasonable doubt that there are corrupt judges in the system, and the system has failed to tackle the corruption in higher judiciary.
A number of other judges of the Supreme Court, and various high Courts as also eminent lawyers have also openly made statements about prevailing corruption in the higher judiciary. Justice J S Verma, one of the architects of the Collegium system had said in an interview with CNN-IBN, “I cannot say that there has not been a single corrupt judge even in the Supreme Court. You have that in public knowledge.”
Corruption in higher judiciary found a mention before a bench of the Supreme Court on 20 August, 2020 when Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal told the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari that he has the names of nine former judges of the Supreme Court who have said that there is corruption in higher judiciary. He had made this statement during the case of activist-lawyer Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Earlier in 2008 Mr. Prashant Bhushan in an interview with Tehalka magazine had stated that ‘8 of the 16 former Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt’. When a contempt proceeding was initiated against Mr. Prashant Bhushan his father Mr. Shanti Bhushan, a former law Minister of the Country, had filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to implead his name in the contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court which was initiated against his lawyer son, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, and said that he stood by the statement made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan. Mr. Shanti Bhushan had given the names of the judges in a sealed envelope and had dared the court to open the envelope and read out the contents of the allegations made for an open debate.
■ Unworkable Impeachment Process is making judges of Higher judiciary immune from punitive action:
A study of the Constitutional debate would reveal that the framers of the Constitution were deeply concerned about the independence of judiciary. But, the framers of the Constitution were also aware about the normal human virtues and vices of a judge. This can be understood by the statement of Dr. Ambedkar made during the discussion regarding appointment of Chief Justice India- “But, after all the Chief Justice is a man with all the failings, all the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have.”(Constituent Assembly Debate on appointment of Chief Justice of India; May,24,1949). It may be mentioned that the same constitutional provision which is ensuring the independence of judiciary, is also responsible for making the higher judiciary immune from punitive action. A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court cannot be removed from service otherwise than the Constitutional provision of impeachment, which has practically proved unworkable. In this context Justice V R Krishna Iyer very aptly stated “Our founding fathers have laid down for us a constitutional jurisprudence of judicial power, but the integral component of judicial accountability has not been designed with a sense of principled pragmatism. As a result the escalating misconduct of judges has often gone unpunished. Barring the extreme measure of impeachment, the law is silent, so much so that one might well say that the accountability of the judiciary is the vanishing point of jurisprudence. This void, unless competently covered by well thought-out legislation, is bound to undermine the democratic credibility of the judiciary.”(Judicial Accountability to the Community: A Democratic Necessity; Economic and Political Weekly; July 27, 1991, p.1808)
■ Containing Corruption in Higher Judiciary: A big Challenge before Collegium
Judiciary practically holds the whole edifice of democracy, and if the public faith in judiciary collapses democracy will collapse. As a matter of fact, Indian judiciary has emerged more strong each time it faced a challenge posed from outside. Furthermore, it has championed the cause of a vibrant democracy in the Country, and repelled successfully all attacks on the institutions that could have weakened the Indian democracy. The formation of Collegium system is itself a step in this direction. The biggest challenge before the Indian judiciary now is to handle corruption in it’s own higher ranks which is a difficult task to handle. Corruption which affects the independent functioning of judiciary from within will be countered effectively provided, what Justice Markandeya Katju said, “Indian judiciary do not bury the corruption of its own members under carpet, and keep on hypocritically speaking against corruption by politicians and bureaucrats.” The people have to wait and watch as to what measures the Collegium takes to effectively contain corruption in the higher judiciary. People have to be hopeful for the sake of the success of democracy in the country.
The writer is a political and social activist and a practising advocate in Jharkhand High Court. Views expressed are personal.
