Why in news?

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has initiated an unprecedented three-member in-house inquiry into Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma following allegations that bundles of cash were found at his residence after a fire on March 14.

The inquiry, distinct from the constitutional impeachment process, will be conducted by Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana HC), G S Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh HC), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka HC).

What’s in today’s article?

• Removal of a Judge in India
• In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability

Removal of a Judge in India

• Constitutional Provision
  • The process for the removal of a Supreme Court judge is outlined in Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution.
  • Article 218 extends the same provisions to High Court judges.
• Grounds for Removal
  • A judge can only be removed on two grounds:
    • Proved misbehaviour
    • Incapacity
• Impeachment Process
• The removal process requires an impeachment motion in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
• At least two-thirds of members present and voting must approve it.
• The number of votes in favour must exceed 50% of the total membership of each House.
• Final Approval
  • If Parliament approves the motion, the President issues an order for the judge’s removal.
  • If Parliament is dissolved or its term ends, the impeachment motion fails.

In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability

• Origins of the In-House Procedure
  • Complaints against judges are not limited to Parliament. The CJI or a High Court CJ may also examine them.
  • The need for an internal mechanism arose in 1995, after financial impropriety allegations against Bombay HC CJ A M Bhattacharjee.
  • The SC, in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), highlighted a gap between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour under Article 124.
  • A five-member committee was formed to create an internal process for addressing judicial misconduct.
  • The committee submitted its report in October 1997, and the SC adopted it in December 1999.
• Revisions in 2014
  • In 2014, a sexual harassment complaint by a Madhya Pradesh judge led the SC to refine the in-house procedure in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
  • Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra outlined a seven-step process.
• Process for Handling Complaints
  • Receiving the Complaint: Complaints may be made to the CJI, a HC CJ, or the President of India.
  • Forwarding the Complaint: The HC CJ or President forwards the complaint to the CJI.
    • The CJI may dismiss the complaint if it is deemed not serious.
  • Preliminary Inquiry
    • The CJI may seek a report from the HC CJ concerned.
    • If the HC CJ recommends a deeper probe, the CJI reviews the report and judge’s statement.
  • Formation of an Inquiry Committee
    • The CJI may form a three-member committee, including:
      • Two High Court Chief Justices
      • One High Court Judge
    • The committee follows natural justice principles and gives the judge an opportunity to explain.
  • Inquiry and Report Submission
    • The committee submits a report to the CJI, stating whether:
      • The allegations have merit.
      • The misconduct warrants removal proceedings.
  • Post-Inquiry Actions
  • If the misconduct is not serious, the CJI may “advise” the judge and place the report on record.
  • If the misconduct is serious, the CJI advises the judge to resign or retire.
  • If Judge Refuses to Resign
  • If the judge refuses, the CJI directs the HC CJ to stop assigning judicial work.
  • If the judge still does not resign, the CJI informs the President and PM, recommending removal proceedings.
• Current Relevance
  • In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already directed Delhi HC CJ D K Upadhyaya to stop assigning him judicial work.