Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi questioned the complex process of impeaching judges, calling for a change in the system. He pointed out that in 75 years, no judge has been successfully impeached, despite multiple attempts. According to him, the process is so complicated that it becomes almost impossible to take action. His comments come amid the ongoing judge cash controversy, sparking fresh debate on judicial accountability.
New Delhi: Former Attorney General of India and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi called for a forensic investigation into the cash-at-home scandal, emphasizing the necessity to reform the current disciplinary system for judges, which relies exclusively on the cumbersome process of impeachment.
He noted that in the past 75 years, no judge has been impeached despite several attempts, highlighting the complexity of the process.
Describing the incident as a “huge dent in the heart of the judicial dispensation system,”
Mr. Rohatgi stated that “if public confidence is undermined and a judge is found guilty, action should be taken at the earliest.”
He remarked,
“There must be a better system for disciplinary action. Today, the only constitutional action is impeachment, which is so laborious, complex, and difficult that no impeachment has taken place in 75 years.”
This comment came in light of the case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, from whose residence a stash of partially burnt currency notes was recovered on March 14, the night of Holi, by the fire department responding to a fire at the judge’s bungalow.
Additionally, Mr. Rohatgi questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to conduct an internal investigation, asserting,
“There is a need for a police investigation and forensic investigation. A large number of VCDs and CCTV footage should be collated to uncover the truth of the matter.”
The senior advocate also scrutinized the current system of judge selection through a collegium, stating,
“The old debate on the manner of appointment of judges and the process for disciplinary actions against them needs to be reexamined.”
He described the collegium as “absolutely unsatisfactory and opaque,” asserting that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution “somewhat selectively.”
Mr. Rohatgi noted that an attempt to introduce transparency a decade ago was rejected by the court. He suggested,
“If the National Judicial Commission (NJC) is considered flawed, we can find a middle ground that incorporates some transparency and outside perspectives, allowing a committee to recommend judges rather than having only ‘judges selecting judges.'”
Justice Varma, who was transferred to the Delhi High Court from the Allahabad High Court in 2021, is now recommended by the Supreme Court for a return to his original court a decision that has faced criticism.
The court’s assertion that this transfer is unrelated to the discovery of the burnt currency notes has also been challenged.
Mr. Rohatgi remarked,
“I never understood the Supreme Court’s statement that this transfer has nothing to do with the cash scam,”
“In my view, it is precisely because of the cash scam that he is being proposed for transfer. We need to get to the bottom of this whether the judge is at fault, guilty of moral turpitude, or if his reputation is being unjustly tarnished.”
Former Solicitor General Harish Salve added that any transfer should be delayed until the investigation is complete.
He stated,
“If Justice Varma is being transferred for reasons unrelated to this issue, then those matters have become intertwined. If the allegations against him are false, transferring him is very unfair; if they are true, then a transfer is insufficient.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
