Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court and formerly of the Delhi High Court, has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the in-house committee proceedings that led to a recommendation for his impeachment. He contends that the entire inquiry process violated constitutional provisions and procedural fairness. His arguments strike at the very legitimacy of the in-house system and raise profound questions about judicial independence, due process, and institutional accountability. In the petition, he articulates five foundational arguments, seeking the Court’s intervention to declare the proceedings unconstitutional.
The first and most fundamental argument advanced by Justice Varma is that the in-house procedure adopted against him is not recognized under the Indian Constitution and thus is unconstitutional. According to him, the procedure has no legal backing from any legislative enactment or constitutional provision. He asserts that such a mechanism cannot override or bypass the formal process laid down under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which exclusively deal with the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. Justice Varma emphasizes that the Constitution vests the power to remove judges solely in Parliament and not in any administrative authority or internal judicial committee. Therefore, the committee’s recommendation for his removal, made outside the purview of the constitutional process, is void and without legal effect.
His second argument rests on the constitutional limitation that no authority, including the Chief Justice of India or the Supreme Court, has supervisory or disciplinary jurisdiction over High Court judges. Justice Varma contends that the power to initiate or impose punitive consequences on High Court judges rests solely with Parliament, and any internal inquiry conducted without legislative sanction impinges upon the independence of the judiciary. He stresses that the collegium or the Chief Justice cannot claim unilateral authority to conduct investigations that carry disciplinary consequences. Allowing such power, he warns, would violate the principle of separation of powers and could reduce High Court judges to subordinate positions under the Supreme Court, something the framers of the Constitution never intended.
The third major argument made by Justice Varma pertains to the procedural unfairness that allegedly characterized the entire inquiry. He claims the in-house committee failed to observe even the basic tenets of natural justice. No formal charges or complaints were served on him before the investigation began. He was not given access to the statements of witnesses or any documentary evidence on which the committee relied. Additionally, he was never provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or produce counter-evidence. Even CCTV footage from the premises in question, which could have supported his defense, was not reviewed. According to Justice Varma, the committee conducted the proceedings in an opaque and biased manner, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to respond or defend himself.
The fourth contention relates to the denial of an adequate opportunity to respond to the committee’s findings or to present his case before the Chief Justice of India. Justice Varma states that he was shown only a truncated summary of the committee’s report, not the full findings. Within an unreasonably short period, he was allegedly asked to resign or face impeachment. This, according to him, amounts to coercion, especially given the absence of a formal hearing or detailed rebuttal process. He maintains that fundamental fairness required that he be allowed to present his side in full before any recommendation for removal was forwarded to constitutional authorities such as the President or Parliament.
The fifth and final argument Justice Varma presents is that the contents of the inquiry report, including prejudicial material, were leaked to the public, thereby violating his right to dignity and privacy. He contends that the dissemination of selective information to the media has subjected him to public vilification, tarnished his professional reputation, and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. By releasing sensitive details from an internal judicial process to the public domain, the authorities involved, he argues, effectively conducted a media trial. This not only prejudiced the pending legal process but also made it practically impossible for him to secure an impartial evaluation of the charges.
Together, these five arguments paint a compelling picture of what Justice Varma alleges to be an unconstitutional and procedurally defective process. He claims that the inquiry committee’s actions have not only violated his fundamental rights but also set a dangerous precedent for the future of judicial independence in India. In seeking judicial review, Justice Varma has asked the Supreme Court to declare the in-house mechanism unconstitutional and quash the report that recommends initiating impeachment proceedings against him. He has also urged the Court to reaffirm that the only legitimate path to judicial accountability lies through Parliament and the constitutional machinery provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The case holds significant implications for the judiciary, particularly in how internal disciplinary processes are conducted against sitting judges. If the Supreme Court were to accept Justice Varma’s arguments, it could lead to a re-examination of the validity and scope of the in-house procedure altogether. Conversely, if the Court upholds the inquiry’s findings, it may affirm the judiciary’s authority to internally regulate its members under exceptional circumstances. Either outcome will have a long-lasting impact on the balance between judicial independence and accountability in India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.