Under Justice Khanna, the Supreme Court has been proactive in taking steps to improve transparency and accountability in the functioning of the higher judiciary. It is in Justice Khanna’s term as CJI that 21 of the 33 judges of the apex court, including the CJI and three others in line to become CJIs, declared details of their assets on the court website (the others are expected to do so shortly). And, on CJI Khanna’s instructions, the Supreme Court recently published details of all 221 persons recommended for appointment as high court judges by the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) between November 2022 and April 2025, of which 29 are pending approval from the government.

Such public disclosure will surely reinforce public trust in the higher judiciary, and address allegations of nepotism in appointments.

In Justice Varma’s case, the CJI has gone by the book: The judge was transferred to his parent court, not given any judicial work, and a committee of judges was set up to investigate the charges against him. CJI Khanna forwarded the committee’s report to Justice Varma, and the latter was given the option to resign from office or seek early retirement. Justice Varma has rejected both the options, leaving the CJI to seek the accused judge’s removal from office, which under the provisions of the Constitution (Articles 124 and 218), can be done only on the order of the President of India, which follows the passing of the motion to remove the judge by special majorities in both Houses of Parliament. As is evident, the impeachment process, as the laborious protocol to remove a judge of the constitutional courts is referred to, involves the legislature and the executive, and has been tried only five times in independent India. Any showdown, which is inevitable in the event of an impeachment process as the 1993 Justice Ramaswami impeachment episode revealed, is best avoided: Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court was the first judge to face impeachment proceedings, but the Opposition’s motion seeking his ouster was defeated in the Lok Sabha after an extended debate in Parliament. The difference in Justice Varma’s case is that the initiative to seek his removal has come from the highest court, a first in India. The case against Justice Varma is seen as a test of the higher judiciary’s adherence to the high principles of probity and accountability that it has insisted that all institutions follow.

The Indian public views the Supreme Court not merely as the guardian of constitutional rights and freedoms but also as an institution maintaining high standards of probity, and an example for other public institutions. The executive and legislature should now lend their shoulders to the CJI’s laudable initiatives to ensure that the higher judiciary remains free of the stain of corruption. Their conduct will be keenly watched.