Interview/ K.K. Venugopal, former attorney general
Q/ Do you think the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma raise ethical concerns about judicial conduct?
A/ Undoubtedly they do.
Q/ What precedent does this set for judicial accountability?
A/ The presumption of innocence will apply. In the interests of the institution as well as Justice Varma himself, there should be a transparent inquiry so that Justice Varma can clear his name, or would fail to do so.
Q/ Do you see any political undertones in this controversy, which has once again brought up the National Judicial Appointments Commission versus collegium debate?
A/ Naturally, the issue of appointments for the collegium straightaway comes into focus. The comparative merits and demerits of the two systems will now be the subject matter of discussion. Article 124 of the Constitution gives the president, that is, the council of ministers, the exclusive right to propose candidates, and appoint them to the higher judiciary, subject to the condition that the chief justice of India is consulted. This mandate has been neutralised by a series of judgments, ending with the striking down of the NJAC amendment to the Constitution. The executive certainly is interested in restoring some element of government participation in the appointment process. Hence the political wing is likely to utilise the occasion to advance its views.
Q/ The Allahabad Bar Association has said that Allahabad High Court should not be a dumping ground for judges.
A/ There is a presumption of innocence, and a judge is entitled to a fair procedure before being condemned. Today, Justice Varma has been banned from sitting in court, and hence, until a final verdict is arrived at, the stand of the association is premature.