Justice Varma’s case creates an unprecedented situation

The move to remove Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court for his alleged misconduct in the cash discovery row has created an unprecedented situation where parallel proceedings are underway on the issue in the Supreme Court and in Parliament.Following his indictment by an in-house committee for recovery of unaccounted half-burnt cash at his official residence in Delhi during a fire incident on March 14, the then CJI Sanjiv Justice Khanna on May 8 wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma's removal. On July 21, notices for his removal were submitted in both Houses of Parliament.Justice Varma has challenged the in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence here when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday said he will constitute an appropriate Bench to hear Justice Varma’s petition.

The notices submitted in both Houses of Parliament for Justice Varma's removal are apparently prompted by the then CJI Khanna’s letters to the President and the Prime Minister recommending his removal following his indictment by the in-house inquiry.

But Justice Varma’s petition seeking to declare the then CJI’s recommendations as unconstitutional and quash all consequential actions taken pursuant to May 3, 2025 in-house committee’s final report has complicated the issue.

The situation throws up several questions. What if the Supreme Court declares in-house committee report unconstitutional and quashes all consequential actions? Can Parliament still go ahead with the removal proceedings?

Conversely, what if the Supreme Court upholds the in-house committee report but Parliament rejects the motion for Justice Varma’s removal? Does initiation of proceedings for removal of a high court judge by the CJI (by his letters to President, PM) violate the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution?

Adopted in 1999 through a Full Court Resolution, the in-house mechanism is meant to deal with complaints against erring judges in order to preserve judicial independence and maintain public faith. Can it go beyond self-regulation and fact-finding to the extent of recommending a judge’s removal?

The question is all the more important in view of the fact that the framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution exclusively vested powers for removal of judges in Parliament through an address supported by a special majority, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Though there are no clear answers to these questions at this juncture, the in-house inquiry can certainly not be a substitute to the inquiry envisaged under the 1968 Act.

But beyond the procedural nitty-gritty involved in the case, there is a far more important issue i.e. corruption in the judiciary that erodes public faith in the institution. Scandals that have hit the Judiciary in the last few decades are an indication that the existing mechanisms to deal with deviant behaviour of judges aren't working properly. It’s time to go for a complete overhaul.