Former judges debate cash evidence disclosure's implications

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has sparked a debate among former Supreme Court judges after he publicly disclosed evidence about cash found at the home of Delhi high court judge Yashwant Varma. Some judges support this move as a step towards transparency, while others believe it is too early to reveal unverified materials. Former judges voiced concerns about procedural fairness. They argue that disclosing information before an inquiry committee has had a chance to evaluate it could harm the investigation. Justice Ajay Rastogi expressed his worry that releasing partial information could lead to misunderstandings. He asked how people would trust the inquiry’s outcome if the committee eventually clears Judge Varma’s name. Another unnamed former Chief Justice questioned the timing of the disclosure. They stressed that the inquiry panel should work without outside pressure. However, some judges defended CJI Khanna's actions, saying it was important to counter rumors and reassure the public. Justice Kurian Joseph acknowledged the challenges but criticized the police’s handling of the case. He noted that procedural lapses raise serious concerns. Justice Indira Banerjee also supported the release of information, highlighting that it could clarify the situation amid circulating rumors. The mixed reactions to this disclosure show the ongoing complexity of balancing transparency and due process within the judiciary. It raises important questions about how to address allegations against judges in a public era that demands accountability.