Source: Press Release 

Why in News? 

The Chief Justice of India has constituted a three member Committee to conduct an inquiry into allegations of alleged recovery of unaccounted money from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of Delhi High Court. 

• The three member committee consists of Justice Sheelu Nagu, Justice  G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman.  

What is the Background of the Controversy Surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma?   

• It was alleged that a large amount of unaccounted cash was discovered at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. 
• As per the reports of the Times of India the cash was found by firefighters who were responding to a fire at the judge's residence while he was not present. 
• The Chief Justice of India on 20th March 2025 called an extra ordinary meeting of the Supreme Court collegium on the issue. 
• After the incident surfaced, Justice Varma is proposed to be transferred to Allahabad High Court which is his parent High Court. 
• The Supreme Court has published documents related to an inquiry into the March 14, the 2025 incident where "sacks" of half-burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered in a storeroom at Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's residence following a fire. 
• The judge has strongly rejected allegations that he or his family removed any currency, stating, "The alleged removal is not known to us. None of my staff removed any article, currency or cash in any form." 
• Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has constituted a three-member committee to investigate the matter and has requested details of security guards posted at Justice Varma's residence in the past six months. 

Can a First Information Report (FIR) be Registered against a Sitting Judge? 

• The law was enunciated in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991). 
• No criminal proceedings can be initiated against the sitting Judge unless the Chief Justice has been consulted. 
• The Chief Justice of India must advise the President to permit police registration of an FIR if the CJI finds allegations against a judge prima facie credible. 
• The President consults with the CJI, who reviews all materials before recommending whether to sanction prosecution or filing of an FIR against the concerned judge. 
• This confidential inquiry process, conducted under the CJI's authority to maintain institutional credibility, has become known as the 'In-House Procedure.' 
• The In-House Procedure originated from a 1991 judgment involving allegations against a former High Court Chief Justice under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PCA). 
• The Supreme Court addressed two key questions in this case: whether judges qualify as public servants under the PC Act and who has the authority to grant sanction for their prosecution. 
• The Veeraswami judgment established that judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Chief Justices, are classified as 'public servants' under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• Criminal prosecution or FIRs can be filed against judges for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act once proper sanction is obtained. 
• If a judge no longer holds office, no sanction is required to initiate proceedings against them under the Act.

What is ‘In- House Enquiry’ Procedure? 

• The Supreme Court termed the procedure as ‘In - House Enquiry’ in the case of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee (1995). 
• The Court indicated that impeachment is considered a "drastic" remedy that should be reserved only for serious cases involving judges. 
• To avoid unnecessary use of impeachment, the Court suggested an alternative procedure specifically for cases involving High Court judges. 
• In the case of Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (2015), the Supreme Court provided further clarification on the In-House procedure. 
  • This 2015 judgment specifically elaborated on the role and responsibilities of the Chief Justice of the High Court when complaints are filed against judges of that High Court. 
  • The Supreme Court's clarification helped establish a more structured approach to handling complaints against High Court judges through the In-House procedure rather than immediately resorting to impeachment.

What is the Procedure of ‘In- House Enquiry’? 

• Complaints against judges can initially be received by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of India, or the President. 
• If the Chief Justice of the High Court believes further action is needed, all information must be forwarded to the Chief Justice of India. 
• The Chief Justice of India may constitute a three-member Committee of judges to investigate allegations against High Court judges. 
• When allegations are against Supreme Court judges, the Chief Justice of India examines the complaint first and may form a three-judge Committee from the Supreme Court. 
• The investigating Committee follows principles of natural justice and submits a report to the Chief Justice of India. 
• If misconduct is found to be serious, the judge is asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement. 
• If a judge refuses to resign when asked, judicial work may be withdrawn and the President and Prime Minister are notified. 
• For less serious misconduct, the judge is advised accordingly by the Committee. 
• No specific procedure exists for allegations against the Chief Justice of India, though the President must consult other Supreme Court judges. 
• Inquiry reports remain confidential and are not publicly disclosed, as ruled in the case of Indra Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (2003).