Why in News :
The Government of India is initiating a constitutional removal motion against Justice Yashwant Varma (currently at the Allahabad High Court), following serious allegations of misconduct and corruption.
The process has been triggered under Article 124(4) and Article 217 read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Background:
- Incident Trigger: A fire at Justice Varma’s official residence earlier this year revealed sacks of charred currency notes, suspected to be linked to corrupt activities.
- Initial Position: Justice Varma served at the Delhi High Court during the time of the incident.
- Investigation: An in-house Supreme Court committee, headed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, was constituted to probe the matter.
- The panel did not formally indict Varma but recommended further steps, including the possibility of his removal.
| Legal & Constitutional Framework for Removal: Constitutional Provisions: Article 124(4): Deals with the removal of Supreme Court judges. Article 217(1)(b): Extends similar provisions to High Court judges. Judges can be removed only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Step 1: Motion admitted by either House with signatures of 50 RS MPs or 100 LS MPs. Step 2: Presiding officer forms a three-member inquiry committee, comprising: A Supreme Court judge (preferably the CJI), Chief Justice of a High Court, A distinguished jurist. Step 3: Committee submits report to Parliament. Step 4: If the report upholds the charges, both Houses must pass the motion with a special majority. Step 5: The President then issues the removal order. |
Developments So Far:
- Justice Varma has been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, with no judicial work assigned.
- Government is currently gathering MP signatures to introduce the motion, as per Minister Kiren Rijiju.
- The Monsoon Session (July 21–Aug 21, 2025) is likely to see the introduction of the motion.
Key Issues Involved:
Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence:
- The case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring judicial accountability and safeguarding independence from executive or legislative pressure.
Opacity in the In-House Mechanism:
- The in-house inquiry panel functions without public scrutiny. This raises questions about transparency and fairness, both for the judge under scrutiny and for public trust.
Parliament’s Role:
- The removal mechanism is exclusively parliamentary, protecting against arbitrary executive action—but also making the process lengthy and rare.
Rare Use of Removal Motion:
- Only one judge—Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta HC)—has faced successful passage of such a motion in either House (RS passed it in 2011; he resigned before LS could vote).
- The Justice Varma case would test the political will and procedural robustness of the system again.
| UPSC Relevance GS Paper 2 : Structure, Organization & Functioning of Judiciary – Separation of Powers – Role of Executive & Parliament in Judicial Accountability GS Paper 2 : Important Constitutional Bodies (Judiciary) – Transparency in Governance – Mechanisms for Removal & Oversight Mains Practice Question: Q. “The independence of the judiciary must not come at the cost of accountability.” In light of the Justice Yashwant Varma case, discuss the constitutional provisions and challenges related to the removal of High Court judges in India. |