Corruption in Indian Judiciary: Extent, Causes, Impacts

In March 2025, a fire at the residence of a Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, led to the discovery of burnt bundles of cash​. This incident immediately raised fresh concerns about corruption in the Indian judiciary. The judge denied any wrongdoing, but the episode has triggered a nationwide debate on judicial integrity. It is a stark reminder that even the judiciary – often seen as the last bastion of justice – is not immune to corruption. The need for greater judicial accountability and transparency in the courts has thus become more urgent than ever.

The Extent of the Problem

Corruption in the judiciary is not a new phenomenon, but its persistence is increasingly visible. Public confidence in the courts has been eroding – surveys indicate many Indians perceive the judicial system as tainted by corruption. In fact, some studies have ranked the judiciary among the most corruption-prone institutions in the country, second only to the police. Lower courts are especially vulnerable, with frequent reports of litigants having to pay bribes to court staff or intermediaries for quick and favorable orders. Even some higher court judges have faced serious allegations, showing that the problem spans all levels. Transparency International has observed that chronic delays in case disposal, a shortage of judges, and complex court procedures create conditions ripe for graft​

Some notable instances of judicial misconduct in recent decades are listed below:

These examples show that even senior judges have faced corruption allegations, yet none have been successfully removed by impeachment. Most often proceedings fail or the judge resigns, revealing significant structural obstacles in ensuring accountability.

Causes of Judicial Corruption in India

Several systemic factors contribute to corruption in the judiciary:

• Overburdened Courts and Delays: The massive backlog of cases (over 4 crore pending cases) results in interminable delays.
  • This encourages some litigants to offer speed money for quick hearings or orders, a practice exploited by middlemen and even some officials.
• Opaque Appointments and Transfers: The process of appointing and transferring judges (e.g. via the Collegium system) lacks transparency. Secrecy in selections can breed nepotism or favoritism, undermining merit and integrity.
• Weak Accountability Mechanisms: There is no effective external oversight of judges. Removal requires impeachment by Parliament – a process so cumbersome that it has never actually unseated a judge for misconduct. Internal peer inquiries are conducted, but their outcomes are often kept confidential and lack enforceability.
• High Stakes and External Pressures: Given the high stakes in many court cases (political or financial), there is temptation for powerful litigants to influence outcomes. Allegations of judges later receiving plum posts or benefits have raised suspicions of quid pro quo, further tarnishing the judiciary’s image.

Impact on Justice and Society

Corruption in the judiciary gravely undermines the justice system. It erodes the right to a fair trial – if court decisions can be swayed by money or influence, equality before the law is subverted. Public trust in the judiciary diminishes when people perceive that justice is available only to the highest bidder. A compromised judiciary also weakens the overall fight against corruption, as powerful wrongdoers might escape punishment by manipulating court outcomes, leading to a sense of impunity. There are economic consequences too: investors and citizens rely on honest courts to enforce contracts and rights, so a corrupt judiciary discourages investment and can hamper growth. Ultimately, if the pillars of justice are seen as corrupt, it weakens the rule of law. Notably, the poor and marginalized are worst affected – those who cannot afford bribes may be denied justice. In the long run, a corrupt judiciary weakens democracy itself.

Judicial Accountability: Mechanisms and Challenges

India’s Constitution provides a mechanism to remove superior court judges for misconduct – impeachment by Parliament – but this has proven ineffective in practice. No corrupt judge has ever actually been removed through impeachment, as the process is politically fraught and requires an overwhelming majority. For example, in 1993 Justice V. Ramaswami was found guilty of misconduct by an inquiry, yet the impeachment motion in Parliament failed due to political hesitancy.

In the absence of external oversight, the judiciary largely relies on self-regulation. The Supreme Court’s in-house procedure allows judges to examine complaints against their peers, but these inquiries happen behind closed doors and often result in mild consequences (at most, a request for resignation). There is little transparency, so public confidence in these internal mechanisms is limited. Judges also wield contempt of court powers which, at times, have been used to silence those who raise allegations, making it harder to expose corruption.

It is telling that even the Lokpal anti-corruption law of 2013 excluded the judiciary from its purview, anticipating a separate mechanism – which is yet to materialize.

Notably, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 – which would have required judges to declare assets and set up a judicial oversight committee – was passed by the Lok Sabha​ but ultimately lapsed. The failure of such reforms highlights the tension between preserving judicial independence and enforcing accountability.

Judicial Reforms in India: Steps Taken So Far

Over the years, various reforms have been initiated to curb judicial corruption and improve integrity. Notable steps include:

• Appointment Process Reforms: Widespread criticism of the opaque collegium system led to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) attempt to make appointments more accountable. Although Parliament passed the NJAC law in 2015, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in favor of preserving judicial independence. Since then, the judiciary has made some effort to increase transparency in collegium decisions (e.g. revealing some selection reasons), but appointments remain largely an internal process.
• Technology and Process Improvements: Administrative reforms aim to reduce opportunities for graft in court processes. The e-Courts project now enables online case filing, random case allocation, and digital case tracking, limiting the direct interfaces that bred bribery. Court procedures are also being streamlined (for instance, stricter limits on adjournments) to reduce delays that often incentivize corrupt shortcuts.
• Ethics and Disclosure Initiatives: The higher judiciary has adopted a code of ethics (a Restatement of Values of Judicial Life) and begun voluntary disclosure of judges’ assets to promote transparency. Judicial training programs place greater emphasis on ethics. Additionally, a landmark 2019 Supreme Court ruling brought the office of the Chief Justice under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a move aimed at greater transparency. These measures are positive, but in the absence of a binding law, they depend largely on voluntary compliance.

Evolution of Judges’ Asset Disclosure Norms in India

India’s approach to judges disclosing assets has evolved gradually, shaped by mounting demands for accountability:

• 1997 – Internal Judicial Code: For decades after Independence, judges had no obligation to reveal personal assets. This changed in 1997 when the Supreme Court adopted a “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” – an ethics code requiring every Supreme Court and High Court judge to privately declare their assets (including those of spouse and dependents) to their respective Chief Justice. It was a crucial first step toward accountability, though entirely confidential.
• 2009 – Transparency Initiated: By the late 2000s, public and media pressure for judicial transparency had intensified. In response to an RTI plea, the Delhi High Court ruled in 2009 that judges’ asset declarations are not beyond the scope of the RTI Act. That year, the Supreme Court took a historic step by agreeing to publish its judges’ asset statements on the court’s website. Several High Courts followed suit by releasing their judges’ asset details. Parliament even introduced the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009 to mandate disclosures, but it was shelved after opposition to making the information public.
• 2010s – Toward a Legal Mandate: Calls for a stronger framework continued. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 was introduced to require annual asset disclosures by judges and set up oversight for enforcement. It passed the Lok Sabha but lapsed in the Rajya Sabha. In 2019, the Supreme Court in a related case confirmed that the CJI’s office (and thus judges’ asset records) fall under the RTI Act, reinforcing transparency.

Current Framework for Asset Disclosure

No single statute yet governs judicial asset disclosures in India. Instead, different levels of the judiciary follow their own norms:

• Higher Judiciary (Supreme Court & High Courts): Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts still follow the 1997 resolution by submitting asset statements to the Chief Justice of India or their High Court Chief Justice. Since 2009, the Supreme Court has voluntarily published its judges’ asset details on its website, and a few High Courts do the same. However, most High Courts keep these filings confidential. In practice, nearly all higher court judges declare assets internally, but public access to these declarations remains limited and inconsistent.
• Subordinate Judiciary: Judges at the district and subordinate levels file annual property returns under their service rules, similar to other public servants. These returns are submitted to their superior authorities or High Courts to flag any unexplained wealth. But unlike some civil services, these filings are not made public. They generally come to light only if an investigation or disciplinary proceeding demands reviewing a judge’s assets. Thus, the subordinate courts have an internal asset declaration system, but little transparency for the public.

Gaps and Challenges in the System

Despite these practices, key gaps persist in judges’ asset disclosure norms:

• No Binding Rule, Patchy Transparency: Without a binding law, disclosure is voluntary and varies widely. Many judges’ asset statements remain confidential, leading to a lack of uniform transparency. This patchwork approach can undermine public trust.
• No Independent Scrutiny: There is no independent verification or audit of the assets declared by judges. If a judge misreports or omits assets, it may go unnoticed unless external agencies intervene.
• Privacy and Independence Concerns: Judges worry that full public disclosure of their finances could violate privacy or invite undue pressure. Fears that stringent rules might be misused to harass judges make the judiciary cautious about reforms. Any solution must address these concerns to avoid encroaching on judicial independence.

Comparative Analysis: International Best Practices

Looking abroad illustrates how judicial asset disclosure can be handled:

(Notably, the UN Convention Against Corruption urges countries to have asset disclosure systems for public officials, including judges, to prevent corruption.)

The Way Forward: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability

Going forward, a multi-pronged approach is needed to enhance integrity and transparency in the judiciary:

• Make Disclosure Mandatory by Law: Enact a law requiring all higher court judges to declare their assets annually in a standard format, and publish a summary of these declarations on a public portal. The law should be drafted with the judiciary’s input and include safeguards for sensitive personal information.
• Independent Oversight: Establish an independent judicial oversight commission (with adequate safeguards for judicial independence) to investigate complaints against judges and recommend action, which will bolster accountability.
• Reduce Pendency: Address the huge backlog by appointing more judges and improving court infrastructure. Faster justice delivery will remove the incentives for litigants to resort to bribery for speedy outcomes.
• Transparent Appointments: Reform the appointment and transfer process by laying down clear criteria and including outside scrutiny. A more transparent, merit-based system will help curtail favoritism and nepotism.
• Asset Disclosure: Mandate annual disclosure of assets by judges and have a mechanism to scrutinize any disproportionate assets. Financial transparency can deter accumulation of illicit wealth.
• Public Vigilance: Encourage media, civil society and honest insiders (whistleblowers) to expose judicial malpractices. Whistleblower protection laws should be strengthened to safeguard those who bring wrongdoing to light.
• Zero Tolerance Culture: The judiciary must enforce a zero-tolerance policy for corruption from within. Strong precedents – like swiftly removing or penalizing errant judges – and a commitment from the top judicial leadership will send a clear message and restore public faith in the institution.

Conclusion

Corruption in the Indian judiciary is a serious problem undermining the rule of law and public trust, as evidenced by the recent incident of a High Court judge found with unexplained cash. This is a stark wake-up call for urgent and comprehensive reforms. India must institute bold systemic changes to hold judges accountable and uphold judicial integrity. Only a transparent and accountable judiciary can deliver justice to citizens and reinforce democracy.

Practice Question: Examine the causes of corruption in the Indian judiciary and suggest comprehensive reforms to strengthen judicial accountability and integrity in India’s justice system. (250 words)