As details following a fire at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court come to light, the real danger is not that there will be no action. Given the kind of revelations and the seemingly transparent approach of the Supreme Court, a fair investigation seems likely.

If something substantial does emerge, there is hope that the response won’t be a mere but something more serious. The actual risk is this: that the muck of judicial corruption will be of a single judge, allowing the system to turn a blind eye to a deeper institutional rot.

An even greater risk looms — that under the pretext of punishing one man, the entire judiciary will be maligned, rendering a final blow to whatever little independence our courts still retain. In other words, the treatment could end up killing the patient.

For those familiar with the inner workings of Indian courts, this scandal was no bolt from the blue. What’s new is not the crime — but a divine twist of fate that put it in the public view, making cover-up impossible. Otherwise, stories of judicial corruption echo through the corridors of our courts every single day — from the bottom to the top.

It’s possible some of these tales are fuelled by personal grudges, but the absence of any public accountability only gives more oxygen to such rumours. When Prashant Bhushan, in response to a contempt of court case filed against him in 2022, submitted an affidavit with evidence of corruption against eight former chief justices of India, the court chose to bury the matter rather than investigate. Unfortunately, that’s the pattern every time a sensitive issue relating to the judiciary is raised — sweep it under the rug.

This time, let’s not repeat that story. At the very least, there are four big issues that demand serious attention — issues that the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reform (CJAJR) has been consistently raising for the past ten years.

First, there’s the question of how allegations of corruption against judges are handled. The process must be such that the public retains its faith in the judiciary. To its credit, the Supreme Court has offered a rare display of transparency in this latest case. Once the story broke, the Chief Justice of India made all documents related to the matter public — barring a few names and details that could compromise the investigation.

The probe has been handed over to the , and Justice Varma has been until the investigation is complete. Hopefully, the final report will also be released to the public. Whatever the outcome, there should be no room left for suspicion.

But here’s the real question: why can’t this level of transparency be the norm in every serious case? Sadly, in recent years, we’ve seen the exact opposite. Take the case of former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, who not only faced a sexual harassment allegation — he actually sat in judgement over his own case! Later, even when a committee was formed to look into the matter, the complainant wasn’t even given a copy of the findings.

In most cases, we’re left in the dark. Was there an inquiry? What was the result? This opacity breeds only more distrust. There should be a clear rule: if anyone brings a serious allegation — complete with name and supporting evidence — against a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court, then the court must form an internal committee, conduct a proper inquiry, issue a written verdict and publish it (with due caution and safeguards).

Second, the entire process of appointing judges needs to be more transparent. Right now, the power to appoint judges lies with the Supreme Court’s Collegium — a group of senior judges. That makes it all the more important that this sensitive process be beyond reproach. But in reality, questions abound. Allegations range from nepotism and casteism to gender bias and political interference. Some of these may well be baseless — but how can the public know when nothing is made public?

That’s why CJAJR has demanded that, as far as possible, all paperwork related to appointments be made public—including the names considered, objections raised and the reasoning behind the Collegium’s final decisions. And let’s not forget the central government’s growing tendency to selectively accept, delay or outright reject the Collegium’s recommendations. This arbitrary behaviour must also be reined in.

Third, we need to talk about the opaque and often abused system of court rosters. Anyone even mildly familiar with how courts function knows that the fate of a case depends hugely on which Bench it is assigned to — and when. This crucial decision lies entirely in the hands of the CJI, who is the so-called ‘master of the roster’. That means the CJI can essentially shape the outcome of any case: how long it drags on, when it’s heard and which judge or Bench (with what ideological leanings) hears it.

The abuse of this power is rampant, especially in high-stakes matters involving governments, powerful politicians or big business. Just look at the Delhi riots cases — where bail pleas have languished for years without a hearing. The CJAJR has demanded that this power no longer rest solely with the CJI. Instead, a Collegium of senior judges be entrusted with roster duties. Bench allocation should be randomised — ideally via a lottery.

Every case must be listed in a timely manner, and all urgent hearing requests should be addressed in open court.

Fourth and finally, it’s time judges were made to publicly declare their assets. The irony is biting: the Supreme Court has made it mandatory for politicians to disclose their assets and income while filing nomination papers. Even government officers are now required to do so. And yet, the same does not apply to high court or Supreme Court judges. That has to change. The judiciary, which holds others to high moral standards, must itself become the gold standard of integrity and transparency.