Context:

• There is the need to discuss the constitutional, legal, and ethical dimensions of judicial accountability in India in light of recent allegations against sitting High Court judges, especially the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
• The procedures, legal precedents, and tensions between judicial independence and accountability, is a subject of increasing relevance to governance, polity, ethics, and law.

The Larger Debate - Between Independence and Accountability:

• Contrasting ideals:
  • Jawaharlal Nehru: Emphasized Parliamentary supremacy, arguing judiciary must advise, not obstruct governance.
  • Justice Y. K. Sabharwal: Advocated judiciary's proactive role in ensuring good governance, including interventions in electoral reform, environment, and constitutional interpretation.
• The central question: Recent controversies prompt the question: “Who judges the judges?”

Constitutional Safeguards Ensuring Judicial Independence:

• Supreme Court judgments establishing supremacy of the Constitution:
  • Keshav Singh vs Speaker (1965)
  • PUCL vs Union of India (2005)
• Key safeguards:
  • Articles 124, 217: Provisions for the -
    • Removal of high court (Article 217) and SC judges (Article 124) by Parliament on grounds of “proven misbehaviour” or “incapacity”.
    • Fixed tenure and salaries.
    • Immunity from legislative discussion.
  • Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Enacted (by the Parliament) under Article 124(5), it provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct.
• In-House procedure:
  • In the C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) case, the SC validated peer-review model.
  • In 1997, SC adopted the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” for internal inquiry, authorizing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary.

The Case of Justice Yashwant Varma - A Legal and Ethical Flashpoint

• The case: Burnt currency discovered at Justice Varma's residence triggered an in-house probe by CJI. A report submitted to the President recommended impeachment of the judge.
• Procedural lapses:
  • The inquiry under the 1968 Act is not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour falls within the definition of a crime.
  • For example, no FIR has been registered so far in the Justice Varma case, and nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR.
  • This is despite the fact that the discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the -
    • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
    • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
    • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
    • Income Tax Act, RBI Act
• Legal position (Veeraswami Case, 1991):
  • Judges can be prosecuted only with CJI’s consent.
  • Ensures balance between accountability and protection from harassment.
  • But does not bar FIRs or seizure of evidence without naming judges. 

Frameworks for Judicial Accountability - Indian and Global:

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:
  • Motion to remove the judges must originate in Parliament, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman.
  • If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges.
  • Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate. Otherwise, the motion is dropped.
• Global references:
  • This framework was upheld in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia.
    • In these countries also initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later.
• The Law Commission of India (in its 195th Report) recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman.
  • The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like
    • The Siracusa Principles (1981) and
    • The Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998).

Ethical Perspective and the Path Forward:

• Justice must be done and seen to be done:
  • Transparency and rule of law must prevail.
  • Accountability mechanisms should follow constitutional and procedural safeguards.
• Harry T Edwards (Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia): Peer review enhances, not diminishes, judicial independence.

Conclusion:

• The judiciary’s strength lies in both its independence from political interference and its responsiveness to constitutional accountability.
• Recent incidents have exposed procedural gaps that must be addressed through legislative reform, administrative clarity, and ethical resolve, all while safeguarding the sanctity of India's justice system.