Boost to transparency or premature? Ex-SC judges split
CJI Sanjiv Khanna's disclosure of evidence on cash found at a judge's residence sparks debate among former judges over transparency vs. procedural fairness.
New Delhi Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s decision to publicly disclose evidence related to the cash pile found at the official residence home of sitting Delhi high court judge, justice Yashwant Varma, has led to a divide among former Supreme Court judges. While some view the move as a much-needed step towards transparency, others deem it as premature.
Several former judges argued that the disclosure of unverified material gathered by government agencies -- before a three-member in-house inquiry committee has had the chance to independently assess it -- raised concerns about procedural fairness. Others, however, contended that making the information public helped counter speculation and reassure citizens about the judiciary’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
Justice Ajay Rastogi, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2023, voiced caution regarding the timing of the disclosure. “Transparency has to be maintained in every walk of life, but the stage at which it is introduced is crucial. Let the inquiry committee reach a conclusion first; that conclusion can then be made public,” he said.
Offering his reasons to doubt the correctness of CJI’s action, the former SC judge said, “Presently, the collation of information put out in public domain is provided by the government agencies. This information has to be cross-checked and even put to the judge. Whatever information is put up, who is going to clear the doubts people have. There are missing links as people do not know the quantum of cash. The information is half-baked. It leads to a lot of problems as people will try filling the gaps depending on how they perceive and receive the information.”
Justice Rastogi said things would get complicated further if the panel ultimately exonerated justice Varma. “Suppose the committee finds the judge innocent — will the public accept its verdict after the damage to his image?” he asked.
A former CJI, who asked not to be named, also questioned CJI Khanna’s decision. “Once an inquiry has been ordered, what is the purpose of disclosing the material at this stage? The panel should be given the space to conduct its proceedings without external influence,” he said, emphasising that such disclosures might prejudice the investigation’s outcome.
On Saturday, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry panel to investigate the allegations relating to reported discovery of cash at the Delhi residence of justice Varma. The panel includes justice Sheel Nagu, chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana high court; justice GS Sandhawalia, chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh high court; and justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka high court. The statement issued on the constitution of the panel also annexed the initial inquiry report in full, along with the reported video evidence of cash allegedly found at justice Varma’s residence on March 14 after a fire incident was reported.
But several judges also defended the CJI’s decision, arguing that it was necessary to counter the growing wave of rumors and public speculation surrounding the case.
Justice Kurian Joseph, a former Supreme Court judge, acknowledged the dilemma. “In the given situation, when rumours were doing rounds and no consistent facts were coming out from any side and even questions were raised on why the Supreme Court has acted with delay, in that context, the CJI is right to have resorted to making the information public.”
However, justice Joseph raised concerns about police’s handling of the case, pointing out procedural lapses in the recovery process. “It is strange that no proper recovery note or ‘mahazar’ (official record of recovered items) was prepared. If this had involved an ordinary citizen, the police would have followed standard protocol. Such procedural inconsistencies raise serious questions,” he said.
Justice Indira Banerjee, similarly, supported the publication of justice Varma’s response, suggesting that it was necessary to balance what had otherwise been a “one-sided narrative”. She noted that while such disclosures are not the norm, they can work in a judge’s favour if they help clarify misunderstandings. “Much of the information was already circulating before the CJI released the documents, so the disclosure itself was not necessarily prejudicial,” she argued.
Justice Banerjee also defended the release of the video evidence. “The video was the basis for taking action. The judiciary is often criticized for lack of transparency, and withholding such material might have led to even greater backlash,” she said.
The divided reactions to CJI Khanna’s disclosure underscore the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to balance transparency with due process. The controversy reflects broader concerns about how the judiciary should handle allegations against its own, particularly in an era of heightened public scrutiny.
