Cash found at Justice Verma’s residence: Has judicial system failed to achieve transparency in its operations?
According to the National Judicial Data Grid report, as of March, more than 45.4 million cases were pending in the country's courts. Of these, over 4.643 million cases are more than ten years old. If we assume that each case involves at least two or three parties, then approximately 100 to 150 million people in the country are victims of judicial delays, and this number is continuously increasing. From the perspective of the common man, nothing is bigger than judicial proceedings. Once entangled in the cycle of court dates, it becomes nearly impossible to escape for years.
The government and judiciary continuously strive to resolve cases in the shortest time possible. This can only happen when processes are simplified. However, the judicial system is not just limited to criminal or civil cases. It also plays a crucial role in ensuring the right to conduct business, operate in a free environment, and protect fundamental rights and other legal entitlements. Before anything else, attention must be paid to the health of the judicial system, which has been the subject of increasing debate.
At this point, three questions arise: How can the judiciary be kept independent from political and governmental influence? How can judicial appointments be made more transparent? And most importantly, how can justice be made accessible to the common man? The judiciary is often considered the last resort for justice, but in recent times, internal and external concerns have been raised about it. Along with hope, many fears persist. It often appears that the reins of the country are in the hands of the Supreme Court rather than the government. However, the judicial system has not yet achieved full transparency in its responsibilities.
The judiciary must be independent and free from government pressure. However, it is also true that the Constitution grants the power to make laws and appoint judges to the legislature and executive. There is no doubt that the executive should not be free from scrutiny. Questioning the judiciary is often considered contempt of court because the judiciary must be beyond suspicion. But if the issues within the judiciary remain opaque and doubts arise internally, how can they be resolved?
Are the bundles of burning currency notes in Delhi raising all these questions together? Where are we heading? The controversy surrounding the cash found at Justice Yashwant Verma’s residence has reignited debates. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar referred to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, passed by Parliament in 2014, and stated that if the Supreme Court had not struck down the judicial appointment system, “things would have been different.” He also held discussions with political leaders regarding the issue. Some observers believe this meeting aimed to gauge political parties’ views, particularly the opposition, on the collegium system.
The government has not introduced any proposal on this matter, and the meeting yielded no concrete outcomes. However, unlike in 2014, there seems to be no consensus among political parties on judicial reforms. The NJAC Bill was passed by Parliament in 2014 but was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The NJAC Act proposed that judicial appointments be made by a six-member panel led by the Chief Justice of India, including two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two “eminent persons” chosen by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The Supreme Court rejected the NJAC, arguing that an alternative process that does not prioritize the judiciary’s independence cannot be accepted. In 2014, all parties in both Houses, except the AIADMK, which abstained, supported the Act. Later, more than 50% of states, including those governed by Congress and left-wing parties, also approved it. However, this consensus did not last long.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, a faction of the opposition believes that the government should not have control over high court judicial appointments. Technically, these appointments are made by the President, following recommendations from the Prime Minister-led Cabinet. The country’s Constitution was drafted when there were no major doubts about politicians’ integrity or their commitment to democracy. In the early years, there were no instances of executive overreach in judicial appointments. However, political circumstances have changed over time.
Ultimately, everything circles back to politics, revealing a clear lack of accountability. The issue is not just about judicial reforms but also about the health of the entire system. In 2018, Justices Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph wrote a letter to the Chief Justice and fellow judges, urging them to safeguard the judiciary’s independence. While in office, Justice Chelameswar raised concerns about the collegium system for judicial appointments. In January, four Supreme Court judges held a press conference, questioning the state of the judiciary.
A common complaint is that influential positions are distributed among a select few. Senior lawyers often appear in court, and family connections and nepotism within the judiciary are apparent. In this context, Justices Kurian Joseph and Chelameswar made a pledge: they would not accept any government positions after retirement. They argued that excessive communication between the government and the judiciary poses a threat to democracy—not just in the current administration but across all past governments.
The real question is not about identifying problems but finding solutions. Centralized power within a single institution is detrimental to democracy. In such cases, the executive, judiciary, and legislature must collaborate. Reforms should also be initiated from within the judiciary. Therefore, positive suggestions should be encouraged. The recent March 17 decision by the Allahabad High Court has sparked nationwide debate, with the Supreme Court intervening and strengthening its sensitivity.
Women's organizations and intellectuals reacted strongly to the Allahabad High Court's decision. Some women’s groups even approached the Supreme Court. Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih noted that the ruling was not only insensitive but also demonstrated an inhumane mindset. Therefore, a stay on the decision was necessary. The bench acknowledged that the ruling lacked sensitivity. Despite reserving judgment for four months, it was not subject to thorough deliberation before being pronounced. In this case, the Supreme Court has also issued notices to the central and Uttar Pradesh governments. Notably, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also condemned the Allahabad High Court's decision.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that touching a minor girl’s breast and untying her pajama string does not constitute rape or an attempt to rape, which led to widespread outrage. The case involved a teenage girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj district, where three young men harassed her, dragged her under a bridge, and untied her pajama string. A passing tractor driver rescued her. When the local police failed to help, the victim’s family approached the special court in Kasganj, where the accused were charged under IPC Section 376 and POCSO Act Section 18. The accused then challenged the charges in the Allahabad High Court.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling sparked public outrage, as it was seen as endangering women's safety. The 'We the Women of India' organization took the matter to the Supreme Court, which then intervened. Notably, in a similar case, the Supreme Court previously overturned a controversial Bombay High Court ruling and reinforced legal sensitivity. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that touching a child’s private parts with sexual intent constitutes sexual assault under POCSO Act Section 7, even if there is no skin-to-skin contact.
Undoubtedly, in such serious cases, sensitivity must be maintained to ensure positive societal impact and women’s safety. There should be political consensus on these matters. In today’s highly polarized political landscape, is this possible? In recent times, judicial activism has led to action in some corruption cases. Furthermore, many election reform laws were implemented only after Supreme Court intervention.
---
*Journalist
Comments