Last week, the Times of India broke the story about large sums of unaccounted cash found in justice Yashwant Varma’s residence. Earlier, there was the case of justice Shekhar Yadav who blatantly breached judicial propriety and conduct with his statements. In one case, effective action hasn’t been taken. In the second, it happened belatedly and only after protests. That raises the question, has the judiciary acted meaningfully and responsibly? If the answer is no, what does that suggest about the judiciary’s in-house mechanism for accountability? And does it also raise questions about the way judges are chosen, particularly at the high court level?

Justice Ajit Prakash Shah’s Rosalind Wilson Memorial lecture presents a withering critique of the in-house mechanism for accountability. Though delivered in 2019, it’s particularly pertinent today. His first attack is on the character of the in-house system. It’s ad hoc and informal whereas it should be statutory and formal. “There is no statutory basis for the procedure” and it has “limited sanctity within the........

© hindustantimes