The Hindu: Published on 26th March 2025:
Why in News?
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has formed an in-house committee to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct against Justice Yashwant Varma after fire-control personnel discovered large amounts of burnt cash at his residence during a fire emergency. The incident has raised questions about judicial accountability and transparency in the disciplinary process for judges.
Key Issues and Background-
1️. What Triggered the Investigation?
On March 14, a fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence in Delhi.
Firefighters found huge piles of burnt cash inside the storeroom, raising suspicions of financial misconduct.
The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court conducted a preliminary inquiry and recommended a deeper probe into the matter.
The CJI withdrew judicial work from Justice Varma and transferred him to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court.
Justice Varma denied the allegations, claiming neither he nor his family stored the cash in the house.
2. What is an In-House Inquiry in the Judiciary?
India follows an in-house mechanism to investigate complaints against judges of the higher judiciary. The process was formalized in 1999 and made public in 2014.
Steps in an In-House Inquiry:
- If a complaint is received against a High Court judge, the CJI examines its credibility.
- If required, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court provides inputs on the complaint.
- The CJI forms a three-member committee consisting of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one senior judge from another High Court.
- The committee investigates the allegations and submits its recommendations:
- If misconduct is not serious, the judge is informed.
- If serious misconduct is found, the judge is asked to resign.
- If the judge refuses to resign, the President & Prime Minister are informed to initiate impeachment proceedings in Parliament under the Constitution.
- If the complaint is against a Supreme Court judge, the committee consists of three Supreme Court judges.
Current Inquiry Committee for Justice Varma:
- Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court
- A senior judge from Karnataka High Court
3️. Can a Judge Face Criminal Punishment?
Even if a judge is found guilty of misconduct, they do not face criminal prosecution under the current system.
There have been several past cases where judges accused of misconduct have resigned without facing any legal consequences.
Unlike India, other countries have more transparent mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct.
Example: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) in the UK
A statutory body investigates judicial misconduct independently.
Judges found guilty of corruption or misconduct can be removed and prosecuted.
India does not have such an autonomous body, making judicial discipline opaque.
4️. The Issue of Transparency in the Judiciary
Problems with the Current System:
Confidential Investigations: The details of in-house inquiries are not made public, reducing trust in the judiciary.
Collegium System & Lack of Accountability: Judges appoint other judges, leading to lack of external oversight.
No Criminal Action: Even in cases of proven misconduct, judges do not face prosecution.
Proposed Reforms:
Make Inquiry Findings Public – Increase transparency to restore public trust in the judicial process.
Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body – Similar to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (UK).
Reform the Collegium System – Consider reintroducing a modified National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Allow Criminal Proceedings Against Judges – If evidence of corruption or misconduct is found, the judge should be legally prosecuted like any other citizen.
5️. The NJAC Debate – A Better Alternative?
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was introduced in 2014 to replace the collegium system but was struck down in 2015.
It aimed to involve multiple stakeholders (judiciary, executive, and civil society) in judge appointments.
A modified NJAC, with a veto power for the CJI to protect judicial independence, could bring both transparency and accountability.
Conclusion: The Need for Reform-
- The case of Justice Yashwant Varma highlights the lack of accountability in India’s judiciary.
- While the in-house mechanism ensures disciplinary action, it lacks transparency and legal consequences.
- Establishing a Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, allowing criminal prosecution for corrupt judges, and reforming judicial appointments through a balanced NJAC can restore public confidence in the judiciary.
