Judicial Accountability and Debate over In-House Inquiry Mechanism

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The Chief Justice of India has agreed to constitute a Bench to hear a petition filed on behalf of Justice Yashwant Varma (Allahabad High Court), challenging the constitutional validity of the in-house inquiry mechanism.

Background

• In March 2025, unaccounted cash was allegedly found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, prompting an in-house committee to recommend his removal without granting him a personal hearing.
  • After he refused to resign, a removal motion was initiated in Parliament.
• The case has triggered a serious debate over judicial independence, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the limits of internal judicial oversight.

In-House Procedure for Investigation

• To address judicial misconduct outside the formal impeachment process, the Supreme Court in 1999 adopted an “in-house procedure” for conducting investigations;
  • Filing Complaints: Complaints can be made to the CJI, High Court Chief Justice, or the President.
  • Preliminary Inquiry: The Chief Justice of the High Court seeks a response from the accused judge and forwards the findings to the CJI.
  • Fact-Finding Committee: If serious allegations arise, the CJI appoints a committee comprising two Chief Justices of other High Courts and one High Court judge to investigate.
  • Recommendations and Action: If the committee finds sufficient grounds for removal, the CJI may advise the judge to resign. If the judge refuses, the report is forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action, paving the way for impeachment.

Constitutional and Legal Issues Raised

• Constitutional Validity of In-House Procedure: The petition contends that the in-house inquiry lacks constitutional or statutory backing, violating Article 124(4) and Articles 218, which lay down the exclusive parliamentary procedure for removing High Court and Supreme Court judges.
• Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petition claims no personal hearing or access to the full report was provided, and the evidence—photos and videos—lacked procedural validity, undermining due process under Articles 14 and 21.
• Separation of Powers: The removal of judges is, by constitutional design, a parliamentary function, not a judicial one. Critics argue that by creating and enforcing an internal mechanism for judge accountability, the judiciary is effectively usurping the powers of Parliament.

Way Ahead

• Need for Institutional Clarity: There is an urgent need to codify the process for preliminary inquiries against judges, with safeguards similar to those in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • The in-house mechanism must be made more transparent, accountable, and procedurally fair.
• Balance Between Independence and Accountability: Judicial independence must not translate into immunity from scrutiny.
  • Simultaneously, disciplinary measures must not undermine judges’ rights to due process.

Source: TH