Legal Stalwarts Call for Judicial Overhaul, Raise Questions on Accountability
NEW DELHI: In a candid and thought-provoking exchange at the Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, two of India’s most prominent legal voices—Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani—have called for a structural reset within the Indian judiciary. The discussion, which centered on the need for heightened transparency and institutional accountability, highlighted a growing tension between judicial autonomy and the public’s demand for integrity.
Concerns Over Judicial Accountability
The debate turned intense when Mahesh Jethmalani questioned the lack of formal police action in a high-profile matter involving former Justice Yashwant Varma. Referencing the discovery of significant amounts of cash at the former judge’s residence last March, Jethmalani expressed frustration over the absence of a First Information Report (FIR). He pointedly noted that instead of facing standard investigative procedures, the judge had repeatedly approached the Supreme Court to seek the quashing of departmental inquiries.
“Why wasn’t an FIR slapped on Varma?” Jethmalani asked, arguing that if such a scenario had unfolded at the home of a government minister, the legal repercussions would have been swift and uncompromising. Harish Salve echoed this sentiment, questioning whether the judiciary applies the same rigorous standards to its own members that it routinely demands from other arms of the state. Both lawyers argued that for the public to maintain faith in the judicial institution, there must be a move away from internal, opaque redressal mechanisms toward more transparent, accountable processes.
The CJI’s Defense
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who was present at the lecture, defended the existing framework, characterizing the internal complaint system as both “robust” and “responsive.” He cautioned against the dangers of bringing all judicial complaints into the public domain, noting that such a practice could be weaponized by disgruntled litigants who often file frivolous grievances after losing court cases.
“If we move these adjudications into the public eye, what happens to the dignity of the judges and the institution itself?” the CJI asked. He maintained that while no system is perfect, the current internal mechanisms remain adequate for addressing misconduct. Regarding the concerns raised over judicial appointments and transfers, the CJI defended the collegium system, describing it as an evolving process that operates with sufficient efficacy through constructive consultation with the government.
The Pitfalls of Judicial Overreach
Expanding the scope of the critique, Harish Salve raised concerns about the judiciary’s tendency to step outside its constitutional mandate. He argued that when courts attempt to play the role of investigator—specifically in cases like the 2G spectrum allocation or the coal block scams—the results are often detrimental to the cause of justice.
“Court-monitored investigations are a myth,” Salve stated. He warned that when the judiciary interferes with the operational independence of investigative agencies, those agencies often feel coerced to deliver a specific outcome to satisfy the court, resulting in skewed and biased investigations.
Salve concluded his address by emphasizing that the health of the Indian democracy depends on maintaining a delicate balance between the three organs of the state. He warned that public perception often fluctuates based on whether the government of the day is perceived as “strong” or “weak,” leading to an unfair expectation that the judiciary must constantly confront the executive to prove its independence. He urged the institution to remain focused on its primary duty: upholding the rule of law.
Disclaimer: This content is auto-generated for informational purposes only.
Source: Read Original News
