Lawmakers on Tuesday pressed the government for stronger mechanisms to enforce accountability within the judiciary, questioning official inertia in high‑profile cases involving senior judges and demanding stricter ethical guidelines.
During a session of the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice under the chairmanship of Brij Lal, MPs expressed deep reservations about adherence to the code of conduct in higher courts. They highlighted a lack of transparency when handling allegations against serving judges and flagged delays in substantially investigating cases that could undermine public trust.
The committee’s members scrutinised two pointed scenarios. First, the failure to register a First Information Report in connection with the Justice Yashwant Varma case – in which unauthorised cash was uncovered at his official residence. Second, they raised concerns about the absence of action by the Chief Justice of India in response to allegations against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, accused of violating ethical norms at a public event. These critical instances underscored their frustration with apparent impunity among high‑ranking judicial figures.
Further amplification came during discussions centred on conflicts of interest among serving judges. Committee members from both the ruling and opposition benches warned about judges leveraging their positions to obtain post‑retirement roles or to build political links with parties. One MP remarked that some judges “abuse their power, passing orders against opposition leaders and then joining political parties”. They also noted that relatives of judges continue practising in the same courts, defying the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life. The committee was told this practice may warrant either reassignment of the judge or suspension of legal work by family members.
In response, the law ministry’s justice department secretary, Raj Kumar Goyal, acknowledged the committee’s concerns. He indicated data on pending complaints against judges across high courts and the Supreme Court was being compiled. He also cited past legislative failures, including the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, as evidence of the limitations faced when attempting reform.
Members proposed several reform measures. A “cooling‑off” period of up to five years before judges can take post‑retirement assignments was put forward to address potential conflicts of interest. There were also calls to raise the retirement age of judges and ensure robust pension arrangements, thereby reducing incentives to seek external affiliations after stepping down.
During the session, the committee also discussed the voluntary nature of asset declarations by judges. Though a 2007 Supreme Court mandate encouraged voluntary public disclosure of assets, compliance remains inconsistent. MPs sought clarification on how many judges have actually made such information available. The secretary promised to provide a data‑driven status update.
The committee’s active engagement reflects escalating scrutiny over perceived ethical shortcomings and structural weaknesses within the judiciary. With over 47 million cases pending and judicial positions often vacant, pressure on the system is acute. Public anxiety about delays and impartiality is mounting.
Cleric Declares Trump and Netanyahu “Enemies of God” Fatwa 