The judiciary has been prompt in ordering an internal query to find out the truth about the allegation of currency notes being recovered from the official premise of Justice Yashwant Varma. A directive from the chief justice of India had led the Delhi High Court to withdraw work from the judge. This was followed by the apex court’s Collegium ordering Mr Varma’s repatriation to the Allahabad High Court. After this move was met with protests by lawyers from that court, the CJI purportedly assured representatives of six Bar Associations that the judge’s repatriation would be reconsidered. Amidst all this, the feverish responses of India’s political fraternity in light of these developments have been noticeable. The Narendra Modi government, which has often been accused of sitting on the Collegium’s judicial recommendations, notified Mr Verma’s repatriation with lightning speed despite the CJI’s pledge to revisit the issue. The vice-president of India has raised the matter of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill while referring to the allegations against Mr Varma. The Congress responded by advocating for a bill that would institute judicial accountability.
It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the political responses need to be read in the context of the history of the tussle between the judiciary and the executive. The Supreme Court had struck down the NJAC Bill, passed with rare consensus by Parliament, on the grounds that the bill facilitated executive encroachment upon the judicial turf. The invocation of the NJAC debate in the present case on the part of politicians can be read as a subtle censure of the judiciary for its refusal to cede space on the issues of judges’ appointment and institutional transparency. The issue of transparency is — the chequered motive of the executive notwithstanding — of utmost importance. The Collegium system has often been criticised for its opacity, adding fuel to mischievous whispers regarding judicial corruption and nepotism. The in-house procedure, which has been tapped into to investigate the charge against Mr Verma, does not permit disclosure either: the details of the inquiry are usually kept confidential by the highest court. But this does not mean that a legislation that could give the executive a greater say in the appointment of judges ought to be the answer to the charge of the judiciary remaining a closed institution. The jury is still out on the inception of a mechanism to facilitate judicial accountability. An end to the stalemate remains contingent on greater synergy between the executive and the judiciary.