Context:

• Recent allegations concerning Justice Yashwant Varma have sparked public scrutiny and provoked sharp criticism.
• But in this case, justice will be served by due process rather than a media trial.

Eroding Public Trust in Judiciary:

• Survey findings: Only 30% fully trust the judiciary; 48% have no trust (C-Voter–India Today Survey). Indicates a growing institutional crisis of confidence in the Indian judiciary.
• Judicial voices: Public faith in the judiciary may not be as strong as believed, especially in rural areas (Justice Abhay S Oka).

Mechanisms of Judicial Accountability:

• In-house inquiry for High Court judges:
  • Initiated by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
  • Fact-finding committee: 2 Chief Justices + 1 High Court judge.
  • Ensures confidential and systematic handling of complaints.
• Separation of powers - Maintains judicial independence:
  • Avoid handing allegations to police (executive) at early stages.
  • Essential due to the government being the largest litigant (~50% pending cases).
• Presumption of innocence:
  • Crucial to justice and democratic values.
  • Allegations should not lead to prejudgment by the media or public.
  • Echoes principle: “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Statutory and Constitutional Safeguards:

• Protection for public servants and judges:
  • Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act): Bars investigation without prior sanction.
  • Section 19, PC Act: Requires sanction before court can take cognisance.
• Judicial oversight mechanisms:
  • Lokayukta Act:
    • Preliminary inquiry required before proceeding.
    • Headed by retired SC judge; judicial members ensure oversight.
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:
    • For impeachment: Committee of SC judge, HC CJ, and distinguished jurist.
• SC precedents (Lalita Kumari case): Mandated preliminary inquiries before lodging FIRs in sensitive cases.

Media Trials and Judicial Ethics:

• Dangers of public commentary:
  • Judges maintain dignified silence due to propriety.
  • Cannot publicly defend themselves; media scrutiny poses risk.
  • “Trial by media” distorts due process.
• Restatement of values of judicial life:
  • Mandates impartiality, avoidance of controversies.
  • Protects the independence and credibility of the judiciary.

Distinguishing Impropriety from Corruption:

• Cash possession vs corruption:
  • India’s cash-based economy: Legitimate reasons for cash holdings (agriculture, inheritance, property sale, etc.).
  • Courts require concrete evidence to establish disproportionate assets.
• Legal standard of proof:
  • Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Mere possession or suspicion cannot be equated with corruption.

Conclusion - Reaffirming Judicial Integrity and Due Process:

• Allegations against judges must be examined through constitutional process, not media judgment.
• Presumption of innocence and procedural fairness are non-negotiable pillars of justice.
• The judiciary’s credibility and independence must be safeguarded by the very laws it upholds.
• Upholding institutional mechanisms over perception ensures democratic accountability and rule of law.