The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has forwarded an inquiry report on Justice Yashwant Varma to the President and Prime Minister, recommending his removal.

Course of Action on the Judge

• In-House Procedure: The CJI constituted a three-member judicial panel to investigate the allegations of Corruption against Justice Varma, as per the Supreme Court’s internal guidelines.
• Panel Composition: The inquiry committee included Chief Justices of Punjab & Haryana and Himachal Pradesh High Courts and a Karnataka HC judge.
• Forwarding to President: Based on the panel’s findings, the CJI has submitted the report and Justice Varma’s reply to the President, initiating the formal removal process

Constitutional Provisions for Removal

• Article 124: Deals with the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges through an impeachment process requiring a special majority in Parliament.
• Article 217: Pertains to the appointment and removal of High Court judges and provides the procedure for addressing their misconduct.

Procedure for Removal of a High Court Judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

• Initiation of Motion: A motion for the removal of a High Court judge must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
• Admission of Motion: The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) may admit or refuse the motion after due consideration. 
• Constitution of Inquiry Committee: Upon admission, a three-member committee is formed, comprising:
  • A Supreme Court judge,
  • A Chief Justice of a High Court, and
  • A distinguished jurist. 
• Investigation Process: The committee frames specific charges, provides the judge an opportunity to respond, and may recommend a medical examination if incapacity is alleged.
• Committee Report: If the judge is found not guilty, the motion is dropped. If found guilty, the report is presented to Parliament. 
• Parliamentary Approval: Both Houses must pass the motion with a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting).
• Presidential Assent: Following parliamentary approval, an address is presented to the President, who then orders the judge’s removal.

Need for Judicial Accountability

• Maintaining Public Trust: Unequal prioritisation of cases undermines judicial credibility and fosters the perception of bias toward affluent litigants.
• Issues with Collegium System: The current system where judges appoint judges lacks transparency and can lead to nepotism or bias.
• Potential Conflicts of Interest: The CJI deciding on administrative and judicial matters, including cases where they may be personally involved, questions neutrality.
• Allegations of Misconduct: Past cases involving Justices Ramaswami and Ranjan Gogoi show that allegations of corruption and harassment tarnish the judiciary’s image.
• Judicial Overreach: Excessive judicial activism, especially in executive and legislative matters, risks undermining the principle of separation of powers.
• Consequences of No Accountability: Without strong checks, judicial independence may be used to shield unethical behavior rather than to protect justice.

Steps Taken to Ensure Judicial Accountability

• Restatement of Values (1997): Laid down ethical guidelines for judges.
• Bangalore Principles (2002): Set international standards for judicial conduct.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2010): Proposed a National Judicial Oversight Committee.
• Live-Streaming of Proceedings: Approved by the Supreme Court to enhance transparency.
• Draft Memorandum of Procedure, 2016: (2016): Emphasised “merit and integrity” in judge appointments.
• SC vs. Agrawal Case: Declared the CJI a public authority under the RTI Act, promoting openness.

Steps Required for Strengthening Accountability

• Encouraging Media Scrutiny: Media and academia should engage in critical, scholarly evaluation of judicial decisions.
• Establishing Judicial Lokpal: An independent body should investigate complaints against judges.
• Comprehensive Code of Conduct: A detailed ethical code should be developed and enforced for all judges.
• Two-Level Discipline Mechanism:
  • Level 1: Penalties like fines or suspension.
  • Level 2: Formal removal process for serious violations.
• Diversity Awareness in Appointments: Appointees should be sensitised to India’s socio-cultural diversity to ensure fair and inclusive justice delivery.