The impeachment motion against a sitting High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, is more than a test of an individual’s integrity — it is a test of the Indian judiciary’s moral spine and the political class’s will to act above partisan instincts. What makes this case especially sobering is not just the allegations themselves — involving cash discovered in a judge’s official residence — but the quiet urgency with which Parliament is now being asked to respond. In most democracies, the independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. In India, it is constitutionally protected. But independence must never be confused with immunity from scrutiny.
Justice Varma’s case has passed through the initial judicial mechanism — an in-house inquiry by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court — and the matter now sits with the highest constitutional authorities. That the Chief Justice of India constituted the probe and received the report underscores the seriousness of the charges. It is no longer an internal matter for the courts; it has crossed the threshold into legislative territory. Parliament must now rise to the occasion. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s call for consensus is welcome, even necessary. The integrity of the judiciary is a non-negotiable pillar of the republic.
Any perception that this case is being used for political leverage would be deeply corrosive. A united front across party lines is not just desirable; it is essential. This is not about left or right, ruling or opposition — this is about right and wrong. The judiciary, often perceived as the final bastion of accountability, cannot afford to appear above the law it interprets. For a democracy to function credibly, its judges must be held to the highest standards — and seen to be held to them. Anything less weakens the very foundation of justice. Justice Varma’s swearing-in as a judge of the Allahabad High Court under contentious circumstances, even as a probe was underway, raises uncomfortable questions about procedural propriety and institutional oversight. Why was this not paused until the inquiry concluded? Was there undue haste, or did it reflect a deeper culture of inertia within judicial appointments? These questions demand answers not just from the judiciary, but from the system as a whole.
Advertisement
The challenge now is to ensure that this impeachment process — if it proceeds — is handled with due process, transparency, and constitutional discipline. There should be no witch-hunt, but neither should there be a coverup. The credibility of both Parliament and the judiciary is at stake. India stands at a critical juncture where faith in public institutions is fragile. If Parliament succeeds in addressing this issue without succumbing to political opportunism, it could restore a measure of public trust. If it fails, the damage could be long-lasting. In this battle between procedure and principle, silence or delay is complicity. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done — even when it wears robes.
