Judicial Accountability: The Inquiry Against Justice Yashwant Varma

Context:

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has initiated a three-member in-house inquiry into Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. This follows allegations that bundles of currency notes were found at his residence, where a fire broke out on March 14.

This inquiry follows the judiciary’s internal accountability mechanism, distinct from the constitutional impeachment process.

Impeachment Process of Judges

• Articles 124(4) and 218 govern the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

• A judge can be removed only on two grounds:

  • Proven misbehavior

  • Incapacity

Parliamentary Procedure

1. A motion is introduced in either House of Parliament.

2. It requires two-thirds majority of those present and voting, and over 50% of total membership in both Houses.

3. If passed, the President issues an order for removal.

This high threshold ensures judicial independence.

In-House Inquiry Mechanism

• Established in 1999 to address misconduct that does not meet impeachment criteria.

• First initiated after allegations against Bombay HC Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995).

Procedure

1. Complaint received by HC Chief Justice, CJI, or President.

2. Preliminary assessment by CJI to determine merit.

3. If needed, a three-member inquiry committee is formed, consisting of:

   • Two High Court Chief Justices

   • One High Court judge

4. Report submitted to CJI, stating:

   • If allegations are substantiated.

   • If removal proceedings should begin.

5. If misconduct is minor, the judge is advised.

6. If serious, the judge is asked to resign or retire.

7. If refusal, judicial work is stopped and removal process begins.

Significance of In-House Inquiry

• Ensures judicial accountability without compromising independence.

• Provides a structured, transparent process for misconduct cases.

• Strengthens public trust in the judiciary.

Conclusion

The in-house inquiry mechanism is crucial for maintaining judicial integrity. It allows for disciplinary action while ensuring the dignity of the judiciary is upheld.