HOW THE JUDICIARY’ IN-HOUSE INQUIRY AGAINST JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA WILL WORK

THE CONTEXT: A fire at Delhi HC Judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence on March 14, 2024, led to the discovery of burnt currency notes. The CJI initiated an unprecedented in-house inquiry under the Supreme Court’s 1999 procedure, reflecting the judiciary’s proactive stance on accountability.

CURRENT ISSUE & ACTIONS TAKEN:

Key Developments:

• • • Preliminary Inquiry: Delhi HC Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya recommended a deeper probe after finding the allegations credible.
    • Justice Varma’s Response: Denied ownership of the cash, citing the storeroom’s accessibility and lack of evidence shown to him.
    • Immediate Measures:
      • Judicial work withdrawn from Justice Varma.
      • Transferred to parent Allahabad HC by the Collegium.
      • 3-Member Committee: Constituted (CJs of Punjab & Haryana HC, Himachal Pradesh HC, and a Karnataka HC judge) for inquiry.

In-House Procedure: Evolution & Mechanism

• • • Origins: Instituted post-1995 C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee case to address judicial misconduct not meeting the impeachment threshold.
    • Framework:
      • 1999 Resolution: Adopted after a SC committee report to handle complaints against judges.
      • 2014 Revisions: Clarified steps post a sexual harassment case (Additional District Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, MP HC).
    • Process:

1. 1. 1. 1. CJI’s Preliminary Assessment: Determines frivolity or merit.
         2. Committee Formation: For HC judges—2 CJs + 1 HC judge; for SC judges—3 SC judges.
         3. Recommendations:

• • • • • Non-serious misconduct: Advisory action.
        • Serious misconduct: Advise resignation or initiate impeachment.

Constitutional Provisions for Removal

• • • Articles 124(4) & 218: Judges can be removed only via Parliament for “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity.”
    • Impeachment Process:
      • Requires a majority of each House’s total membership and 2/3 of those present and voting.
      • President issues removal order post-Parliament approval.

STRENGTHS OF THE IN-HOUSE MECHANISM

1. 1. Internal Accountability & Judicial Independence
      • Safeguarding Independence: The mechanism ensures that judicial accountability is managed internally, shielding judges from politically motivated attacks. This aligns with the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973) that prioritizes judicial independence.
      • Swift Action: Recent cases like Justice Yashwant Varma (2024) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) demonstrate the mechanism’s ability to act without waiting for cumbersome impeachment. Justice Sen resigned after an in-house panel found financial irregularities.
      • Flexibility: The process allows nuanced responses (e.g., advisories, withdrawal of judicial work) instead of a binary impeachment outcome. For instance, in 2014, a Madras HC judge was advised to resign following sexual harassment allegations, avoiding a parliamentary stalemate.
   2. Non-Adversarial Resolution
      • The process avoids public mudslinging, preserving institutional dignity. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), India’s first impeachment motion, failed for political reasons, but the in-house mechanism offers a less politicized alternative.

THE CHALLENGES:

1. 1. Opacity & Erosion of Public Trust
      • Confidentiality Concerns: The Justice C.S. Karnan Case (2017), where a Calcutta HC judge accused SC judges of corruption, highlighted the lack of transparency. The inquiry details were never made public, fueling speculation.
      • Data Deficiency: A 2022 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy Report noted that only 20% of complaints against judges are probed, with outcomes rarely disclosed. This contrasts with the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which publishes annual reports.
   2. No Criminal Liability & Impunity
      • Legal Immunity: Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, judges are excluded from prosecution without the CJI’s consent (Veeraswami Case, 1991). Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned in 2011 over land-grabbing charges but faced no criminal trial.
      • Global Contrast: In Brazil, judges can be prosecuted post-impeachment. India’s system lacks such deterrence.
   3. Police Inaction & Procedural Hurdles
      • FIR Restrictions: The CJI’s prior consent (Veeraswami Judgment) creates procedural delays. The 2019 Sexual Harassment Allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi were probed internally, bypassing a criminal investigation.
      • Judicial Overreach: Legal scholars like Upendra Baxi argue that the judiciary’s self-regulation conflicts with the Rule of Law, as ordinary citizens lack recourse against judicial misconduct.

THE WAY FORWARD:

1. 1. Statutory Oversight Body
      • NJAC Revival with Safeguards: While the Supreme Court struck down NJAC in 2015 (Fourth Judges Case), a revised NJAC with CJI-led veto powers to balance independence and accountability.
      • South Africa Model: The Judicial Service Commission includes lawmakers, lawyers, and civil society, ensuring diverse inputs without compromising independence.
   2. Transparency & Data-Driven Governance
      • Public Disclosure: The Law Commission’s 230th Report (2009) recommended a National Judicial Council to publish inquiry summaries (redacted for sensitivity).
      • Digital Platforms: A real-time dashboard for complaint statuses, as proposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law (2023), could enhance transparency.
   3. Criminal Law Reforms
      • Amend the Prevention of Corruption Act: Include judges under its ambit post-inquiry findings. The Second ARC Report (2007) emphasized this.
      • UK’s Judicial Conduct Office Model: Establish an independent body to probe criminal misconduct, with powers to refer cases to law enforcement.
   4. Balancing Independence & Accountability
      • Global Best Practices: Canada’s Judicial Council publishes inquiry reports, while Germany allows parliamentary oversight with judicial representation.
      • Expert View: Former CJI J.S. Verma advocated for a National Judicial Oversight Committee comprising retired judges and civil society members.

THE CONCLUSION: While crucial for protecting judicial independence, the in-house mechanism suffers from structural opacity and impunity. Reforms must focus on transparency, statutory oversight, and criminal accountability, drawing from global models like South Africa and the UK. As N.R. Madhava Menon noted, “Judicial accountability is not antithetical to independence; it is its cornerstone.” A balanced approach, aligning with the UN Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, can restore public confidence while safeguarding judicial autonomy.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION: Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION: Discuss the existing mechanisms for ensuring judicial accountability and suggest reforms to enhance transparency and public trust in the judiciary.

SOURCE: 

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/how-is-an-in-house-inquiry-conducted-explained/article69373009.ecehttps://indianexpress.com/article/explained/kerala-private-universities-bill-9905202/