Inquiry Against Justice Yashwant Varma

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house three-member committee led by Justice Sheel Nagu for  inquiry following cash recovery at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence.

About In-House Inquiry Mechanism

• Established post-1995 after allegations against Bombay HC CJ A M Bhattacharjee.
• The Supreme Court noted the gap between misconduct and impeachable offenses.
• A five-member SC committee formulated the procedure in 1997, adopted in 1999.
• It involves a seven step process which was again refined in 2014.

Seven-Step Procedure 

• Receiving the Complaint: Complaint can be made to the CJI, HC Chief Justice, or President.
• Preliminary Examination: CJI may seek a report from the concerned HC CJ.
  • Complaint can be dismissed if deemed unsubstantiated.
• Formation of Inquiry Committee: If needed, CJI forms a three-member committee (2 HC CJs & 1 HC Judge).
• Committee’s Investigation: Committee follows rules of natural justice.
  • For example in this case Justice Varma will be given an opportunity to respond.
• Findings Report: Determines if allegations have merit.
  • Assesses severity of misconduct.
• Actions Based on Findings: If misconduct is minor, CJI may advise the judge.
  • If serious, CJI may recommend resignation or voluntary retirement.
• Final Steps if Judge Refuses to Resign: CJI may direct HC CJ to withdraw judicial work from the judge.

About Judicial Misconduct

• Judicial misconduct refers to unethical or improper behavior by judges that compromises the integrity, impartiality, and fairness of the judiciary. 
• It can range from corruption, bias, and abuse of power to failure in upholding judicial duties.
• Forms of Judicial Misconduct:
• • Corruption: Accepting bribes or engaging in financial misconduct.
  • Bias or Conflict of Interest: Delivering judgments influenced by personal relationships or political affiliations.
  • Abuse of Power: Misusing judicial authority for personal or political gain.
  • Delay in Judgments: Excessive delays in case disposal, violating the right to speedy justice under Article 21.
  • Moral or Ethical Lapses: Indecorous behavior that affects the dignity of the office.

Judicial Removal Process Under Indian Constitution

• Grounds for Removal: As per Article 124(4) & 218, judges can be removed for:
  • Proved misbehaviour
  • Incapacity
• Impeachment Process: Requires a special majority with  two-thirds majority in both Lok Sabha and  Rajya Sabha and at least 50 percent of total votes in the houses.
  • The President issues a removal order if Parliament votes in favor.

Shortcomings of the ‘In House inquiry Procedure’

• Lack of Transparency in the In-House Procedure: The in-house procedure for investigating judicial misconduct lacks transparency, as inquiry reports remain confidential. The public and legal community are often unaware of the actions taken against corrupt judges, leading to skepticism about the effectiveness of internal disciplinary measures.
• Contempt of Court Laws Restricting Public Scrutiny: India’s strict contempt of court laws make it difficult to openly discuss or investigate corruption allegations against judges. This suppresses public scrutiny, limits journalistic investigations, and prevents accountability, as criticism of the judiciary is often seen as contempt.
• Self-Regulation and Conflict of Interest: Unlike other government institutions, the judiciary largely regulates itself, creating a conflict of interest. There is no independent body to oversee judicial conduct, making it difficult to ensure impartial accountability and effective disciplinary actions against erring judges.

Conclusion

The judiciary serves as the bedrock of democracy, and any erosion of its integrity weakens the very foundation of justice.

A system or institution is only as strong as the individuals who uphold it. If those in positions of power falter, there must be a robust and foolproof mechanism to safeguard the sanctity of the judiciary and restore public trust.