New Delhi: Senior advocate and BJP Rajya Sabha MP Mahesh Jethmalani on Thursday raised serious concerns about what he described as an “emerging public perception” that the Indian judiciary lacks transparency, especially in cases involving alleged judicial corruption. Taking to X, Jethmalani also accused sections of the higher judiciary of overstepping their constitutional limits by encroaching into the executive’s domain.
“In very recent times a series of issues have conspired to create public perception that the Indian judiciary lacks transparency and accountability in dealing with sensitive issues pertaining to itself, the chief among them being judicial corruption,” Jethmalani wrote. He referred specifically to the controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma, which he said had sparked demands for greater scrutiny of the judiciary, including public disclosure of judges’ assets and stricter actions against alleged misconduct.
“The #JusticeYashwantVarma issue has spawned the declaration of assets by judicial officers including those of the #SupremeCourt,” he wrote, adding that it has also led to growing demands to end the practice of quietly transferring judges accused of wrongdoing. Instead, Jethmalani advocated for “criminal investigations” and inquiries by bodies such as the Lokayukta and Lokpal into such cases.
In a separate but related critique, he warned of judicial overreach, particularly in how the higher judiciary was interpreting constitutional provisions in a manner that, in his view, intruded on executive powers. Citing a recent Supreme Court verdict mandating a three-month time limit for the President to decide on bills reserved by a state Governor, Jethmalani said the judgment was bound to “stir a hornet’s nest.”
He added that Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar had rightly stepped in to challenge the ruling. “It took the irrepressible & Hon’ble #VP of India #JagdeepDhankarji to take up cudgels,” Jethmalani wrote. He defended Dhankhar’s intervention despite the Vice President being only a “symbolic second head of the State,” arguing that the former jurist was merely fulfilling his “sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution.”
Jethmalani said Dhankhar had pointed out that the matter involved interpretation of constitutional provisions and should therefore have been decided by a Constitution Bench, as mandated by Article 145(3). “The pointing out of a patent constitutional flaw… that the 2 judge Bench decision was a nullity… would surely be in discharge of the Vice President’s duty,” he wrote.
