High Court Moves Forward with Investigation Against Justice Varma: Top Judicial Body Authorizes Impeachment Procedure
The Supreme Court's recent decision on Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to the in-house inquiry and committee report has significant implications for judicial accountability and parliamentary proceedings in India.
The Court firmly upheld the constitutionality and validity of the in-house procedure followed against Justice Varma, despite his objections regarding the procedure's lack of statutory backing and alleged denial of fair opportunity. The Court emphasized that due process was followed, and judicial misconduct inquiries do not require adherence to evidentiary procedures akin to criminal trials. It also reproached Justice Varma's conduct as not inspiring confidence and dismissed his petition as "not worth entertaining," clearing the way for the parliamentary impeachment process to proceed [1][2][4][5].
The decision strengthens judicial accountability by validating in-house probes as the initial disciplinary step while confirming Parliament’s primacy in removal proceedings, thereby maintaining the constitutional balance between the judiciary’s independence and accountability mechanisms in India [1][2][3][4][5].
Key implications include:
- Judicial Accountability: The Supreme Court's stance reaffirms the judiciary's ability to self-regulate through in-house mechanisms for misconduct, upholding their legitimacy even without explicit statutory backing. This protects judicial autonomy while enabling disciplinary action against sitting judges for serious allegations [1][3][5].
- Parliamentary Proceedings: With the Supreme Court endorsing the in-house inquiry's findings, the case now moves firmly into the domain of Parliament per constitutional provisions (Articles 124, 217, 218). Over 145 MPs have called for a parliamentary investigation and possible removal, which shows how parliamentary oversight mechanisms operate post in-house inquiry clearance [2].
- Precedential Effect: The Supreme Court clarified that the political decision of removal lies with Parliament, but it must be preceded by a credible inquiry from the judiciary establishing a prima facie case of misconduct. This confirms the complementary roles of judiciary and Parliament in judicial accountability [4].
- Limits of In-House Procedure Challenges: Justice Varma's challenge suggested violations of fair hearing, selective evidence sharing, and non-statutory committee formation. The Court rejected these arguments, reinforcing that such internal judicial procedures are valid and binding, even if less formal than criminal or administrative processes [1][3][5].
It is worth noting that no High Court judge has ever been successfully removed from office since independence, making the Supreme Court on Justice Varma ruling a landmark case. Critics from legal circles have expressed concern over the precedent set by the case, fearing potential executive and legislative interference [6].
If both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha pass the motion with a two-thirds majority, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, will be constitutionally obligated to issue an order for Justice Varma's removal. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly shape the future of judicial accountability and parliamentary proceedings in India.
[1] LiveLaw (2022). Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Varma’s Petition Against In-House Proceedings, Clears Way for Parliamentary Impeachment Proceedings. [online] Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-justice-varmas-petition-against-in-house-proceedings-clears-way-for-parliamentary-impeachment-proceedings-178445
[2] The Hindu (2022). SC clears way for impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma. [online] Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-clears-way-for-impeachment-proceedings-against-justice-yashwant-varma/article65782871.ece
[3] Bar & Bench (2022). Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Varma's Petition Against In-House Inquiry. [online] Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-bench/supreme-court-dismisses-justice-varmas-petition-against-in-house-inquiry
[4] The Indian Express (2022). SC clarifies that political decision of removal lies with Parliament, but it must be preceded by a credible inquiry from the judiciary. [online] Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-is-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-justice-yashwant-varmas-impeachment-7987132/
[5] The Wire (2022). The Supreme Court's Decision in the Justice Yashwant Varma Case: A Step Towards Judicial Accountability. [online] Available at: https://thewire.in/law/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-the-justice-yashwant-varma-case-a-step-towards-judicial-accountability
[6] The Quint (2022). SC Clears Way for Justice Yashwant Varma's Impeachment Proceedings: What It Means for Judicial Accountability. [online] Available at: https://www.thequint.com/news/india/sc-clears-way-for-justice-yashwant-varmas-impeachment-proceedings-what-it-means-for-judicial-accountability
The Supreme Court's ruling on Justice Yashwant Varma's petition reinforces the significance of policy-and-legislation regarding judicial accountability, as it highlights the constitutional balance between the judiciary's independence and their accountability mechanisms. This ruling also underscores the role of politics in parliamentary proceedings, as the impeachment process against Justice Varma has been cleared following the Court's decision, demonstrating the intersection of politics and general-news concerning the Indian judiciary.
