Supreme Court Upholds Misconduct Finding Against High Court Judge
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea from Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, who challenged an in-house inquiry panel's report finding him guilty of misconduct. The case stems from the discovery of burnt cash at his official residence. The Court's decision upholds the panel's recommendation for his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, paving the way for potential impeachment proceedings. The bench noted that Justice Varma's conduct did not inspire confidence and that the CJI has a duty to act on judicial misconduct.
Unpacked:
The in-house inquiry mechanism, established by Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s, allows the Chief Justice of India to appoint a three-judge committee to investigate allegations against a judge. If misconduct is found, minor corrective measures can be recommended, or Parliament may be notified for impeachment if the judge refuses to resign.
After the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Justice Varma’s plea, the panel’s recommendation for his removal can be sent to the President and Prime Minister. This may initiate impeachment proceedings in Parliament, where a special majority is required to remove a judge on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity.
Impeachment of sitting High Court or Supreme Court judges in India is rare. It involves a rigorous process requiring a special majority in both houses of Parliament. Few judges have faced impeachment motions, and none have been removed through this process as most resigned beforehand.
Justice Varma argued that the allegations were based on assumptions and that the inquiry process violated his rights. The Supreme Court found the inquiry’s procedures lawful, noted no fundamental rights were breached, and explained the in-house process is preliminary and non-punitive, not requiring strict evidentiary procedures.