Font size:
Print
Judicial Inquiry Initiated Against Delhi High Court Judge
Context:
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has taken an unprecedented step by initiating a three-member in-house inquiry into the conduct of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma.
More on News
- The decision comes in response to allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at his official residence following a fire outbreak on March 14.
- The internal judicial inquiry will be conducted by Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court Justice G S Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of Karnataka High Court.
- This process differs from the constitutional impeachment procedure and is part of the judiciary’s internal accountability mechanism.
Process of Judge Removal Under the Indian Constitution
- The removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge is governed by Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, which states that a judge can be removed only on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity.”
- Article 218 extends these provisions to High Court judges.
- The impeachment process requires a motion in Parliament, which must be approved by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
- Additionally, the number of votes in favor must exceed 50% of the total membership of each House.
- Once Parliament approves the motion, the President issues an order for the judge’s removal.
- If Parliament is dissolved or its term ends, any pending impeachment motion automatically lapses.
In-House Inquiry Mechanism
- Judicial accountability is not solely dependent on Parliament. Complaints against judges can also be examined by the CJI or the Chief Justice of a High Court.
- The need for an internal accountability mechanism was first recognised in 1995, following allegations of financial impropriety against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee.
- The Supreme Court noted a gap between “bad behaviour” and “impeachable misbehaviour” in the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee.
- To bridge this gap, the judiciary formulated an in-house procedure.
- A five-member committee comprising Justices S C Agarwal, A S Anand, S P Bharucha, P S Mishra, and D P Mohapatra devised guidelines for taking remedial action against judges whose conduct was deemed inconsistent with judicial ethics.
- These recommendations were adopted by the Supreme Court in December 1999.
Revisiting the Procedure in 2014
- In 2014, the Supreme Court re-examined the in-house procedure in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
- The case involved allegations of sexual harassment against a sitting High Court judge, prompting a refined seven-step inquiry process outlined by Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra.
- The process begins when a complaint is received by the Chief Justice of a High Court, the CJI, or the President of India.
- If the complaint is deemed serious, the CJI may seek a preliminary report from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
- If the preliminary report suggests a deeper probe is necessary, the CJI can order a three-member inquiry consisting of two High Court Chief Justices and one High Court judge.
- The inquiry committee follows a procedure consistent with principles of natural justice, allowing the accused judge to present a defense.
- Upon conclusion, the committee submits its findings to the CJI, determining whether:
- The allegations hold merit.
- The misconduct warrants removal proceedings.
- If the allegations are not severe enough to warrant removal, the CJI may advise the judge and place the findings on record.
- If the misconduct is serious, the CJI advises the judge to resign or retire voluntarily.
- If the judge refuses, the CJI can instruct the Chief Justice of the High Court not to assign any judicial work to them.
Implications for Justice Varma
- In the case of Justice Varma, CJI Khanna has already directed Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya to refrain from assigning him judicial work.
- If the inquiry committee concludes that removal proceedings should be initiated, and Justice Varma does not voluntarily resign, the CJI will inform the President and the Prime Minister to initiate formal impeachment proceedings.
This internal inquiry underscores the judiciary’s commitment to accountability and ethical conduct, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial system remains intact.
