Inquiry into Judge Yashwant Varma’s Conduct

An unprecedented inquiry was initiated by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna regarding Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. This followed allegations of currency notes being discovered in his official residence after a fire incident. The inquiry is distinct from the impeachment process outlined in the Constitution of India.

Impeachment Process for Judges

The impeachment of judges is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution. Judges can only be removed for “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity.” The procedure requires a two-thirds majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. If successful, the President issues a removal order. Notably, if Parliament is dissolved, impeachment motions fail.

In-House Inquiry Mechanism

The in-house inquiry mechanism allows for complaints against judges to be examined internally. This was established to address the absence of accountability for judges whose conduct did not meet the high standard required for impeachment. The need for such a mechanism arose in 1995 after allegations against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee.

Development of In-House Procedures

In 1997, the Supreme Court formed a committee to develop procedures for addressing judges’ conduct that fell short of impeachment standards. This led to the adoption of a five-member committee’s recommendations in December 1999, aimed at ensuring judicial accountability.

Recent Revisions to the Inquiry Process

The inquiry process was revisited in 2014 after a sexual harassment complaint against a High Court judge. The Supreme Court established a seven-step process for handling complaints. This involves the Chief Justice of a High Court or the Chief Justice of India receiving and forwarding complaints, potentially leading to a three-member inquiry.

Inquiry Committee’s Role

The inquiry committee, composed of Chief Justices from other High Courts, has the authority to determine its own procedures. It assesses the validity of allegations and whether they warrant removal proceedings. The committee’s findings will guide the Chief Justice’s recommendations on the judge’s future.

Consequences of the Inquiry Findings

If the inquiry finds substance in the allegations, it may recommend removal proceedings. The Chief Justice can advise the judge to resign or retire voluntarily. Should the judge refuse, the Chief Justice can restrict their judicial assignments and inform the President and Prime Minister about the need for removal proceedings.

Importance of Judicial Accountability

This inquiry puts stress on the significance of maintaining integrity within the judiciary. It marks the need for mechanisms that ensure judges adhere to the values of judicial conduct. The process aims to uphold public confidence in the judicial system.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Examine the significance of judicial accountability in the context of Indian democracy.
2. Discuss the constitutional provisions for the impeachment of judges in India and their implications.
3. Analyse the role of the Chief Justice of India in maintaining judicial integrity.
4. Critically discuss the impact of in-house inquiry mechanisms on the independence of the judiciary.

Answer Hints:

1. Examine the significance of judicial accountability in the context of Indian democracy.

1. Judicial accountability ensures that judges adhere to ethical standards, maintaining public trust in the legal system.
2. It addresses misconduct and promotes transparency, preventing arbitrary power within the judiciary.
3. Judicial accountability mechanisms, like in-house inquiries, allow for internal checks without compromising independence.
4. Strengthening accountability encourages a culture of responsibility among judges, enhancing the rule of law.
5. Ultimately, it reinforces democratic values by ensuring that the judiciary remains a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.

2. Discuss the constitutional provisions for the impeachment of judges in India and their implications.

1. Article 124(4) of the Constitution outlines the grounds for impeachment – “proved misbehaviour” and “incapacity.”
2. Impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, ensuring a robust democratic process.
3. The requirement for substantial evidence protects judges from arbitrary removal, upholding judicial independence.
4. However, the high threshold for impeachment may lead to challenges in addressing misconduct effectively.
5. The process reflects the balance between protecting judicial autonomy and ensuring accountability within the judiciary.

3. Analyse the role of the Chief Justice of India in maintaining judicial integrity.

1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) plays a very important role in overseeing the conduct of judges and addressing complaints.
2. The CJI initiates in-house inquiries, ensuring that allegations of misconduct are investigated promptly and fairly.
3. As the head of the judiciary, the CJI sets standards for judicial conduct and integrity, influencing the behavior of subordinate judges.
4. The CJI also advises judges on ethical practices and can recommend resignations when necessary to uphold integrity.
5. Through these actions, the CJI safeguards the judiciary’s reputation and maintains public confidence in the justice system.

4. Critically discuss the impact of in-house inquiry mechanisms on the independence of the judiciary.

1. In-house inquiry mechanisms allow for internal accountability without resorting to the more drastic impeachment process.
2. They can enhance judicial independence by enabling judges to address misconduct internally, reducing external political influence.
3. However, there are concerns that such mechanisms may lack transparency and could be subject to manipulation by senior judges.
4. Effective in-house procedures can boost public trust, provided they are conducted fairly and without bias.
5. Ultimately, the balance between accountability and independence is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.