Full Breakdown
Judiciary Scrutiny and Reform: Highlights from the 6th Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event – Calls for Transparency and Accountability
The speaker urged that the judiciary stay open to criticism, noting that public trust stems from fair processes, not popular outcomes, and described the complaints-handling mechanism as “timely and robust.” Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani questioned current safeguards, citing the Justice Yashwant Varma cash-burning episode and concerns about judicial independence.
Background & Context – Recent Controversies
In March 2025 a video showed cash being burned at Justice Varma’s residence, prompting calls for a criminal FIR that never materialised. The incident resurfaced during the lecture, leading Salve to ask how the response would differ if similar evidence emerged at a minister’s home. Jethmalani cited an India Today-CVoter survey showing 48 % of respondents expressed no trust in the judiciary.
Data & Statistics – Public Confidence Figures
- 48 % of surveyed citizens reported no trust in the judiciary (India Today-CVoter poll).
Official Statements & Responses
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reiterated that the internal complaints system is “robust, responsive and very timely,” while acknowledging that “reform must be the rule.” He distinguished public trust from public approval, stressing that trust is earned when dissatisfied parties accept the fairness of the process.
- Harish Salve argued that court-monitored investigations, such as those in the 2G spectrum and coal-block scandals, compromise investigative independence.
- Mahesh Jethmalani demanded greater transparency in judge appointments and transfers, warning of nepotism and urging a public database of complaints and outcomes.
Criticism & Opposition
Salve critiqued perceived judicial overreach into investigations, suggesting it skews outcomes, and challenged the collegium model for concentrating power. Jethmalani focused on the opacity of appointments, the lack of a publicly accessible complaints registry, and the failure to register an FIR in the Varma cash case.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Complaints mechanism: CJI Kant calls it “robust, responsive and very timely,” while Salve and Jethmalani argue it lacks transparency and needs a searchable database.
- Scope of reform: Kant supports continual improvement but limits public debate on certain administrative issues; Salve and Jethmalani contend that broader structural reforms—including revisiting the collegium and enhancing external oversight—are essential.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The judiciary as an institution is not and cannot be above scrutiny. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction,” — CJI Kant
- “It lies at the heart of transparency itself. For a court cannot seek the confidence of the public by placing itself beyond scrutiny. It must remain willing to be examined, questioned and, where necessary, criticised,” — CJI Kant
- “Judges face complaints at every stage. Should we have every complaint on a website?” — CJI Kant
- “India is the only state where judges appoint judges,” — Harish Salve
What’s Next – Proposed Reforms
CJI Kant signalled that reforms will remain a priority, urging the judiciary to avoid stagnation. Salve and Jethmalani called for concrete steps: an online complaints portal, a review of the collegium’s role, and safeguards against undue influence in judicial appointments. The lecture indicates future policy discussions will focus on balancing independence with accountability.