The government will soon initiate the process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, following the discovery of burnt currency at his residence and subsequent inquiry findings.

Key Highlights of the Case and Court Rulings

• Supreme Court’s In-House Inquiry: A Supreme Court-appointed committee, led by then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna, found sufficient grounds to recommend the judge’s removal after examining witness statements, including Justice Varma’s.
• No Formal Indictment: The fact-finding committee clarified that its report did not indict Justice Varma but recommended that constitutional procedures for his removal be pursued.
• Government’s Planned Action: The Government is set to pass the motion in the Parliament   though the House for introduction of the motion (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) is yet to be finalised.

Constitutional Provision for Impeachment of Judges

• While the constitution does not use the word ‘impeachment’, it is colloquially used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 for the removal of a Supreme Court judge.
• The removal of High Court judges is governed by Article 217(1)(b) and Article 218 of the Constitution of India.
• These articles provide that a judge of a High Court may be removed only by an order of the President of India, based on a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament
• Legal Framework: The process is detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the following steps:

• • Initiation of Motion: A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
  • Formation of Inquiry Committee: Once admitted, the presiding officer constitutes a three-member committee comprising:
    • The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge,
    • A Chief Justice of a High Court,
    • A distinguished jurist.
  • Investigation: The committee investigates the charges and submits a report.
  • Parliamentary Procedure: If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, each House of Parliament must pass the removal motion by a special majority (a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership of the House).
  • Final Decision: The final order for removal is passed by the President of India.

Safeguards to Ensure Judicial Accountability

• In-House Mechanism: The judiciary has an internal process to inquire into complaints against judges, initiated by the Chief Justice of India.
  • This is meant to handle misconduct cases confidentially but seriously.
• Contempt of Court: Courts can take suo motu action to preserve judicial dignity and penalise any action that undermines the judiciary’s integrity.
• Ethical Guidelines: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) provides a code of ethics for judges, though it is not legally binding.
• Public Scrutiny and Transparency: Increasingly, there is an emphasis on transparency in judicial appointments, asset declarations, and in-house inquiries to bolster public trust.

Conclusion

The Justice Varma case underscores the urgent need to enact the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill to institutionalize transparency, enforce ethical standards, and establish a robust mechanism for holding judges accountable while preserving judicial independence and public trust in the judiciary.

DOWNLOAD PDF