Yashwant Varma and the cost of public trust

Justice Yashwant Varma's predicament echoes the agnipariksha faced by Sita in the Ramayana. However, another historical parallel exists — the Salem Witch Trials. Both analogies highlight the dangers of public judgment. While Sita's ordeal emphasised the sacrifice of personal dignity for public trust, the Salem trials caution against unchecked suspicion and mob justice. In Varma's case, the judiciary must tread carefully, ensuring justice without succumbing to public hysteria.

After Ravan's defeat, Sita was joyfully reunited with Ram. Yet, doubts about her purity lingered in Ayodhya. Ram, bound by his duty as king, demanded that Sita prove her chastity. To uphold public trust, Sita walked through fire. Though the flames left her unscathed, her vindication was not enough. Ram, pressured by public perception, banished her to the forest. Sita's exile was not a consequence of guilt but a sacrifice to maintain the legitimacy of the throne.

Sita's departure was not a retreat but a rejection of a society that had doubted her. Even after her sons Luv and Kush restored her honour by reciting the Ramayana to Ram, Sita chose to return to the earth rather than reclaim her place as queen. Her departure preserved the institution's dignity, though it came at the cost of personal justice.

In 1692, Salem, Massachusetts, witnessed a series of trials driven by fear and paranoia. Accusations of witchcraft spiralled out of control, leading to the execution of innocent people. The Salem Witch Trials serve as a grim reminder of how unchecked suspicion and public hysteria can lead to irreversible damage. The trials were a miscarriage of justice where perception, not evidence, dictated outcomes. The trials show the dangers of allowing public sentiment to overwhelm the due process.

In Yashwant Varma's case, these historical lessons resonate deeply. His situation mirrors Sita's in its demand for public validation. It also carries echoes of Salem, where perception risks overshadowing truth. The judiciary must walk a fine line between addressing public concerns and safeguarding against a witch-hunt.

Justice Varma now finds himself in a similar crucible. A fire in the storeroom of his government bungalow led to the discovery of burnt currency notes. Allegations, though unproven, have cast a long shadow over his reputation. Each day brings new rumours and despite the absence of concrete evidence, public suspicion grows. Even if Varma is ultimately cleared, his future may remain tarnished.

Like Sita, he faces scrutiny not just for his actions but also to preserve the sanctity of the institution he serves. His innocence may not be enough to restore public trust. The judiciary, like Ayodhya, must be seen as beyond reproach. However, the Salem analogy serves as a warning that unchecked allegations can erode the principles of justice.

In this climate of intense scrutiny, the SC's collegium faces its own test. The collegium, tasked with judicial appointments and oversight, operates under growing pressure for transparency. In an era where media trials can shape public perception, the collegium's commitment to openness is commendable. However, transparency must be balanced with caution. Rushing to judgment, as in Salem, risks damaging both individuals and institutions.

The collegium's inquiry into Varma's case reflects its desire to uphold judicial integrity. But it must resist the impulse to sacrifice fairness for expediency. Public trust is essential, but it should not come at the cost of due process. The collegium's actions should demonstrate a commitment to measured responses, ensuring that justice prevails without yielding to public frenzy.

It is essential to remember that the actions of one judge should not tarnish the entire judiciary. Institutions are larger than the individuals who serve them. The judiciary's strength lies in its resilience and ability to self-correct. While Varma's case demands scrutiny, it should not undermine confidence in the judiciary as a whole.

Public perception often conflates individual failings with institutional flaws. The Salem Witch Trials demonstrated how hysteria can engulf entire communities, eroding trust in established structures. Similarly, in Varma's case, it is crucial to distinguish between individual inquiry and collective integrity. The judiciary's credibility should not hinge on the outcome of one investigation.

Sita's banishment was an unjust consequence of a necessary act. Varma, too, may find that exoneration, if it comes, will not restore his standing. Public perception, once tainted, rarely resets. Even if the inquiry absolves him, Varma's continued presence may be seen as a blemish on the institution. In such cases, institutions often prioritise stability over fairness to individuals.

However, the judiciary must learn from Salem. The presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of justice. Rushing to remove Varma to appease public opinion may weaken, not strengthen, institutional integrity. A balanced approach — one that respects due process while addressing public concerns — is essential.

Sita's departure was not an admission of guilt. It was a statement that her truth did not need validation from a society that had doubted her. Varma may face a similar fate. Even if he clears his name, his continued presence may be a reminder of the controversy. Like Sita, he may choose, or be compelled, to walk away. His departure, if it happens, would not signal failure but a commitment to preserving the judiciary's sanctity.

However, Varma's departure should not be framed as a necessary sacrifice. The judiciary must resist the temptation to appease public opinion at the cost of justice. The lesson from Salem is clear — sacrificing individuals to preserve institutional image can backfire, undermining the very trust it seeks to protect.

The judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must balance the need for transparency with the virtues of restraint. The collegium's actions should reflect a commitment to due process, ensuring that individuals are not sacrificed to satisfy public clamour. The lessons of Sita's agnipariksha and the Salem Witch Trials converge here. Justice must be seen, but it must also be just.

Varma's case is not just about one judge. It is about the future of public trust in the judiciary. A hasty decision, driven by perception rather than fact, risks undermining the very principles the judiciary seeks to uphold. The collegium's measured approach can ensure that justice prevails, safeguarding both individual dignity and institutional integrity.