Responsibility of the Judiciary and Discussion Regarding Internal Investigation Process

In March 2025, undisclosed cash was reportedly discovered at Justice Yashwant Varma’s home, leading an internal committee to suggest his dismissal without allowing him a personal hearing.

Following his refusal to step down, a motion to remove him was filed in Parliament.

The situation has sparked a significant discussion regarding judicial independence, the principle of separation of powers, and the boundaries of internal judicial evaluation.

Internal Process for Inquiry

In 1999, the Supreme Court established an “in-house procedure” to investigate judicial misconduct outside the formal impeachment process.

Lodging Complaints: Complaints may be submitted to the CJI, Chief Justice of the High Court, or the President.

Initial Investigation: The High Court Chief Justice requests a reply from the judge in question and sends the results to the CJI.

Fact-Finding Committee: In the event of serious claims, the CJI designates a committee featuring two Chief Justices from different High Courts and one judge from a High Court to conduct an investigation.

Suggestions and Measures: Should the committee determine adequate reasons for dismissal, the CJI might recommend the judge step down. Should the judge decline, the report is sent to the President and the Prime Minister for additional measures, initiating the process for impeachment.

Constitutional and Legal Matters Presented

Constitutional Legitimacy of Internal Process: The plea argues that the internal investigation is devoid of constitutional or legal support, contravening Article 124(4) and Articles 218, which establish the sole parliamentary method for the removal of judges from High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Breach of Natural Justice Principles: The petition asserts that no personal hearing or access to the complete report was granted, and the evidence—pictures and videos—failed to meet procedural validity, compromising due process under Articles 14 and 21.

Separation of Powers: According to constitutional design, the act of removing judges is a function of parliament, not of the judiciary.

Path Ahead: Institutional Clarity: The procedure for preliminary enquiries against judges must be codified immediately, with protections akin to those found in the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968.

It is necessary to improve the internal mechanism's accountability, transparency, and procedural fairness.

Strike a Balance Between Independence and Accountability: Judicial independence shouldn't be equated with protection from criticism.

Judges' rights to due process must not be compromised by disciplinary actions.