An in-house inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma after crores in cash were allegedly found at his residence following a fire on March 14, 2025. It is necessary to know how the inquiry will be conducted?
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has initiated an unprecedented in-house inquiry against Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, following allegations that substantial amounts of cash were discovered at his official residence after a fire broke out on March 14, 2025. This inquiry, distinct from the impeachment process outlined in the Indian Constitution, will be conducted by a three-member committee comprising Chief Justices from three different High Courts: Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), Justice G S Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka).
Understanding the Removal of a High Court Judge under the Indian Constitution
The process for removing a judge from the High Court or Supreme Court is governed by Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, which specifies that a judge can only be removed by Parliament on two grounds: “proved misbehavior” or “incapacity.” This procedure, also applicable to High Court judges as per Article 218, is highly rigorous and involves the following steps:
- Initiation of Impeachment Motion: The process begins with an impeachment motion, which must be supported by a significant number of members in either House of Parliament.
- Parliamentary Voting Requirement: For the motion to pass, at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must support it. Additionally, this number must constitute more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
- Final Presidential Order: If both Houses of Parliament approve the motion, the President of India issues an order formally removing the judge from office.
Since impeachment is a long and complex process, the judiciary has developed an internal mechanism to deal with complaints against judges that do not necessarily warrant impeachment but still require investigation.
The Judiciary’s Internal Inquiry Mechanism
Judicial accountability is not limited to impeachment alone. A judge may also be subjected to an internal investigation initiated by the CJI or the Chief Justice of a High Court upon receiving a complaint regarding alleged misconduct.
This in-house mechanism was first established in 1997, following allegations of financial impropriety against Bombay High Court’s then Chief Justice, A M Bhattacharjee.
The Supreme Court at the time recognized a gap between “bad behavior” and “proved misbehavior” (as defined in impeachment proceedings) and sought to bridge this gap with an alternative accountability process.
A five-member committee was formed, which later resulted in a formal in-house procedure adopted in 1999. This framework allows the judiciary to examine complaints against judges and take necessary action without resorting to impeachment.
ALSO READ: Notable Judgments by Justice Yashwant Varma: Delhi High Court
The Seven-Step Inquiry Process
In 2014, the Supreme Court further refined this in-house inquiry mechanism in a case involving a High Court judge accused of sexual harassment. Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra outlined a seven-step process, which remains the standard approach:
- Complaint Reception: A complaint against a judge can be filed with the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, the Chief Justice of India, or the President of India.
- Preliminary Review: If deemed necessary, the CJI may request the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court to conduct an initial assessment and submit a preliminary report.
- Assessment of Seriousness: If the preliminary report suggests that a deeper investigation is warranted, the CJI may set up a three-member inquiry committee comprising two High Court Chief Justices and one senior High Court judge.
- Independent Inquiry: The committee is granted the authority to determine its own procedures, provided they adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring the accused judge has an opportunity to respond.
- Submission of Findings: After concluding its investigation, the committee submits a report to the CJI, categorizing the allegations as either:
- Lacking substance, in which case no further action is taken.
- Substantiated but not serious enough to warrant removal, in which case the judge may be given a formal warning.
- Serious enough to recommend removal, prompting further steps toward resignation or impeachment.
- Advisory Action: If the findings indicate serious misconduct, the CJI may advise the judge to resign or retire voluntarily.
- Judicial Work Restriction & Government Notification: If the judge refuses to step down, the CJI may order that no further judicial work be assigned to them. If necessary, the matter is then escalated to the President and the Prime Minister for formal removal proceedings.
Application to Justice Yashwant Varma’s Case
In Justice Varma’s case, the Chief Justice of India has already instructed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court not to assign him any judicial work, a step often taken when serious allegations surface.
The three-member committee now has the responsibility to investigate whether:
- The allegations of cash being found at his residence are substantiated and
- Whether the misconduct, if proven, is grave enough to warrant removal proceedings.
If the committee concludes that the allegations are not severe enough for impeachment, the CJI may issue a formal reprimand or place the report on record for future reference. However, if the findings indicate serious misconduct, the CJI is likely to advise Justice Varma to resign or retire voluntarily. Should he refuse, the matter may escalate to Parliament, initiating formal removal proceedings under Article 124(4).
Implications for the Judiciary
This case holds significant implications for judicial accountability in India. While the in-house inquiry mechanism ensures that the judiciary maintains its independence by addressing misconduct internally, it also raises questions about transparency and oversight. Unlike parliamentary impeachment, which is conducted in the public domain, in-house proceedings remain largely confidential. This lack of public scrutiny has led to criticism that judicial accountability mechanisms do not always inspire public confidence.
As the investigation into Justice Yashwant Varma progresses, the outcome will serve as a crucial precedent for how India’s judiciary deals with allegations of misconduct while balancing judicial independence and public accountability.
The inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma’s alleged misconduct marks a significant test for judicial accountability in India. The in-house procedure, distinct from the impeachment process, ensures that allegations of judicial impropriety are addressed within the judiciary while maintaining its independence. However, the lack of public transparency in such proceedings often raises concerns about institutional oversight.
As the three-member committee conducts its investigation, its findings will determine the next course of action—whether Justice Varma will face formal removal proceedings or be advised to resign. Regardless of the outcome, this case underscores the ongoing need for a robust and transparent mechanism to uphold the integrity of the judiciary while preserving public trust in the legal system.
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
