Judicial appointment reform calls grow after Varma incident

Justice Yashwant Varma is at the center of a controversy involving the Indian judiciary. His residence recently experienced a fire, leading to the discovery of burnt cash. Although Varma denies any connection to the money, questions are being raised about the accountability and appointment processes for judges in India. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) law, intended to reform how judges are appointed, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The NJAC aimed to create a six-member committee, including judges and external members, to ensure greater transparency. However, the court ruled that executive involvement in appointing judges threatened judicial independence. Concerns about judicial accountability have resurfaced. Critics argue that the current collegium system, used for almost forty years, is opaque. Under this system, five top judges select new judges without external input. Efforts to modify this have faced resistance, leading to questions about the effectiveness of removing judges accused of misconduct. Past impeachment attempts have been challenging. In some cases, the process has failed due to political dynamics or judges resigning to avoid accountability. The lengthy impeachment procedure requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it difficult to remove a judge. Calls for reforms are growing. Officials argue that India needs a robust system to ensure that only qualified individuals become judges. Comparisons are drawn to other countries, where judges are appointed through various means to enhance transparency and accountability. The current controversy around Justice Varma could prompt discussions on revisiting the NJAC and reforms in the appointment of judges in India. Many believe it is essential to address these issues to strengthen the judicial system.