Review of Justice Yashwant Varma's Case through Peer Review is Appropriate

Review of Justice Yashwant Varma's Case through Peer Review is Appropriate

Impeachment Proceedings Against Justice Yashwant Varma: A Test of India's Judicial Accountability

The impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge, have set the stage for a significant parliamentary and legal controversy. The controversy began in March 2025, when partially burnt cash was discovered in his official residence, leading to a three-member in-house inquiry committee and over 200 Members of Parliament across parties moving impeachment motions during the July 2025 monsoon session [1][3][5].

Constitutional Framework

The removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge is governed by the Constitution of India. The primary articles governing this process are Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges, Article 217 for High Court judges, and Article 218, which applies the same procedure to High Court judges. Removal is only possible on grounds of "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity" [1][2][3][4]. The detailed procedural rules are provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Impeachment Procedure

The impeachment process in India is a rigorous one, requiring a high threshold of parliamentary consensus based on established facts of misconduct or incapacity. The process consists of six key steps:

1. Initiation: A motion for impeachment must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
2. Admission: The Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha admits or rejects the motion without any statutory time limit.
3. Inquiry Committee: Once admitted, a three-member committee is formed, including a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
4. Investigation: The committee investigates the charges for "proved misbehaviour" or incapacity.
5. Parliamentary Vote: If charges are established, both Houses of Parliament must pass the impeachment motion with a special majority and a majority of the total membership.
6. Final Removal: Upon successful passage, the President issues an order removing the judge.

Recent Developments and Issues

Justice Varma has challenged the constitutionality and fairness of the in-house inquiry in the Supreme Court, raising questions on the legal validity of the procedure used by the committee [4][5]. The impeachment motion has gathered wide parliamentary support, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations. High-level parliamentary discussions on the modalities and procedures for impeachment have been taking place, involving the Speaker, Rajya Sabha Chairman, secretaries, and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, signaling procedural reforms or clarifications amid the controversy [4].

Proposed or Discussed Reforms

The ongoing debate has highlighted demands for clearer procedural timelines, greater transparency, and standardized norms for in-house judicial inquiries. These discussions reflect a balancing act between safeguarding judicial probity and maintaining the autonomy of the judiciary [4][5].

Some proposed reforms include:

• Redacted inquiry reports are proposed to be publicly released after completion, while maintaining privacy where needed.
• A digital evidence ledger using blockchain is proposed for seized materials to prevent tampering disputes.
• Mandatory annual, online asset & interest disclosure by higher-court judges is proposed, with attestation by an independent auditor.
• The National Judicial Academy is proposed to conduct compulsory biennial modules on integrity, financial prudence, and stress management.
• A time-bound impeachment calendar is proposed, with the Speaker/Chairman deciding admissibility within 30 days and the committee submitting a report in 90 days.
• A proposed Statutory National Judicial Ethics Commission is suggested to combine judges, eminent citizens, and Bar representatives.
• AI-based early-warning analytics are proposed for the Supreme Court Data Grid to flag unusual adjournment patterns or correlated asset spikes.
• A bipartisan Parliamentary Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics is proposed to scrutinize annual ethics reports and table recommendations.
• A statutory 60-day limit is proposed for the President/CJI to decide on sanction in the Veeraswami safeguard, with deemed approval if the deadline lapses.
• The Whistle-blowers Protection Act 2014 is proposed to be amended to cover judicial employees, granting anonymity and contempt immunity.

In summary, the impeachment process for judges in India is constitutionally rigid, requiring a high threshold of parliamentary consensus based on established facts of misconduct or incapacity. The Justice Yashwant Varma case has brought these procedures and their practical challenges into sharp public and institutional focus, stimulating debates on procedural clarity and potential reforms to ensure accountability within the judiciary.

1. The ongoing debate surrounding the impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge, raises questions about the ethical implications of the use of in-house inquiry committees, which is a concern that intersects with the broader discourse on political ethics and general-news matters.
2. Amidst the impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma, the constitutional provisions for the removal of Supreme Court or High Court judges, such as Article 124(4), Article 217, and Article 218, have been highlighted as the mains focus of the ongoing parliamentary discussions on the judicial accountability of the judiciary in India.

Read also: