Chief Justice BR Gavai’s Reforms Boost Judiciary Transparency And Accountability In India

It is heartening to see Chief Justice of India BR Gavai taking proactive steps to fortify the public image of the judiciary. In the short time since he assumed office, he has initiated several bold and welcome measures that reflect his commitment to transparency, accountability, and the dignity of the institution he leads.

One of the most commendable steps is the public declaration of assets and properties by most judges of the Supreme Court, following the example set by the Chief Justice himself. Such declarations, expected of public officials in a democracy, enhance trust and signal a willingness to be held accountable.

Equally significant is the CJI’s announcement that he, and some of his colleagues, would not accept post-retirement positions offered by the government or contest elections immediately after leaving office.

This is particularly noteworthy in a context where former chief justices and judges have, in the past, accepted gubernatorial posts, Rajya Sabha nominations, and even contested for the presidency. These actions inevitably raise ethical concerns and cast doubts about the impartiality of the judiciary.

In a speech in New Delhi on Wednesday, Justice Gavai rightly observed that such appointments invite public scrutiny. His commitment to live-stream all Constitution Bench cases is another move in the direction of openness.

Given the national significance of such cases, live telecasts would help deepen public understanding of the judicial process and remove the shroud of mystery surrounding many landmark judgements.

Yet, even as the nation applauds these initiatives, the reality is that instances of misconduct and corruption have occasionally surfaced in the higher judiciary. A recent case involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, in which crores of rupees in currency were found in his residence following an accidental fire, is a grim reminder.

Though Varma denied any wrongdoing, an inquiry reportedly found his claims lacking credibility. Instead of a meaningful and transparent resolution, he was merely transferred to the Allahabad High Court, a move that met with resistance from the local Bar.

This unfortunate episode underscores a significant structural deficiency: impeachment remains the sole formal mechanism for the removal of a judge, rendering action against judicial misconduct both rare and procedurally cumbersome. It is to be hoped that the government will move forward with its intention to initiate impeachment proceedings in this particular case.

Chief Justice Gavai has rightly observed that circumstances of this nature demand “swift, decisive and transparent action”. The judiciary cannot afford to claim exemption from public scrutiny; it must be prepared to cleanse its own ranks when necessary.

The government, as a frequent litigant, is entitled to the same standard of fair and impartial adjudication as any ordinary citizen. Should CJI Gavai follow through on the reforms and commitments he has articulated, he would have rendered a lasting and invaluable service to the cause of justice in India.