A Case of Judicial Accountability
The case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Delhi High Court judge later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has stirred intense debate over judicial accountability in India. A fire at his residence on March 14, 2025, led to the discovery of approximately ₹15 crore in burnt cash, making headlines after images of the charred notes surfaced publicly.
On March 22, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member in-house committee to investigate. Justice Varma was relieved of judicial duties and recommended for transfer. Multiple petitions demanded an FIR, but the Supreme Court declined to intervene, citing the ongoing in-house probe. Two months earlier, a Supreme Court-appointed panel had already recommended his impeachment—an exceptional step combining administrative action, public scrutiny, and potential legislative removal.
Judicial Prosecution: Legal Safeguards and Precedents
Judges fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act as public servants and can be prosecuted for offenses like possession of disproportionate assets. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) mandates prior CJI consultation before filing an FIR against a sitting judge. If disapproved, police cannot proceed. Furthermore, prosecution requires presidential sanction, also advised by the CJI.
These safeguards exist to shield the judiciary from politically motivated actions while maintaining space for accountability.
In-House Inquiry and the Judicial Accountability Gap
Recognizing a procedural void in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), the judiciary established an in-house procedure in 1997 (adopted in 1999). Under this framework, complaints against judges are first assessed by the CJI. If found credible, a three-judge committee conducts a confidential inquiry, giving the accused judge a chance to respond.
While not equivalent to a criminal trial, the in-house mechanism ensures internal discipline. Penalties may include warnings, transfer of work, or—rarely—impeachment recommendation, as in Justice Varma’s case. This mechanism aims to protect judicial integrity without external overreach.
Constitutional Framework for Impeachment
Articles 124(4), 217, and 218 of the Constitution govern the removal of High Court and Supreme Court judges for “proved misbehavior” or “incapacity.” The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the 1969 Rules lay out a process that begins with a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members. If admitted, an inquiry committee is formed. If it finds merit in the charges, both Houses must pass the motion with a special majority.
Though robust on paper, the process is politically delicate and procedurally complex, making impeachment exceedingly rare.
Judicial Review and its Limits
Judicial review of the impeachment process is allowed but limited. In Ravi Shankar Prasad v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court clarified it could only review procedural lapses, not the merits of evidence or the parliamentary decision itself.
This ensures that impeachment remains primarily a legislative function, shielded from judicial overreach.
SC’s Reluctant Gaze on Justice Varma’s Challenge to its own Panel
Justice Varma, under the pseudonym “XXX,” filed a writ in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the in-house procedure, calling it extra-constitutional and lacking statutory basis. He claimed it violated Articles 124 and 218 and encroached upon Parliament’s exclusive authority under the Judges Inquiry Act.
His petition alleges denial of a fair hearing, concealment of evidence, reversal of the burden of proof, and public dissemination of inquiry materials—turning the probe into a media trial. He seeks to nullify the inquiry report and the CJI’s recommendation for removal.
Though the Court has reserved its verdict, it expressed skepticism about Varma’s conduct, noting his participation in proceedings he later termed unconstitutional and questioning the timing of his legal challenge.
A Political and Legal Test Ahead
Despite several attempts, no Indian judge has been successfully impeached. Previous cases—Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2010), and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)—failed due to political deadlock or resignation.
In this Monsoon Session (July 21–August 12, 2025), a Lok Sabha motion backed by 152 MPs was submitted to Speaker Om Birla seeking Varma’s removal. A similar Rajya Sabha motion, supported by 63 MPs, was discarded before admission.
Parliament is expected to form a statutory inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a jurist—to assess the charges. If both Houses pass the impeachment motion and Justice Varma does not resign, India may see its first successful judicial removal—a landmark in constitutional governance.
The author is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India.
