How Not To Open The Doors Of The Judiciary

Both the collegium and the proposed appointment commission fall short in ensuring a fair process for selecting judges. Lessons from other countries may offer better representation

- KALEESWARAM RAJ

The recovery of cash from Justice Yashwant Varma's outhouse poses many questions. The visuals of the recovery were shocking. Some at the bar, however, doubt the genuineness of the allegations and claim it was a planned entrapment. Justice Varma has alleged conspiracy, which too has not been established. The in-house enquiry ordered by the chief justice of India (CJI) has not reached any conclusion yet; the process lacks certainty and transparency. Meanwhile, Justice Varma has been transferred to the Allahabad High Court; no judicial work has been assigned to him.

It is not prudent to discuss the merit of the issue based on speculation or hearsay. It is definitely not the intention of this article either. The incident has, however, exposed some systemic deficits in ensuring judicial accountability in India. No wonder that following the episode, there has been a call from some corners to reintroduce the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The issue of accountability is connected to the process of selecting judges.

Judicial appointment in India has always been a controversial topic. The introduction of the collegium system happened with the judgment in the Second Judges' case (1993). The idea was further elaborated in the Third Judges' case (1998). Justice V R Krishna Iyer later criticised the new device: "There is no structure to hear the public in the process of selection. No principle is laid down, no investigation is made, and a sort of anarchy prevails." The collegium holds many facets of power that are administrative rather than adjudicative.