Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Indian judiciary has initiated an unprecedented internal investigation into Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. This comes after allegations of cash being found at his official residence during a fire on 14th March 2025. A three-member committee comprising high court chief justices will conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter, examining the serious allegations against the judge. 

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

• On 14th March 2025, a fire broke out at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, located in New Delhi, while the judge was reportedly not present at home. 
• During the firefighting operation, firefighters allegedly discovered multiple sacks containing substantial amounts of unaccounted cash in a storeroom of the judge's official residence. 
• The discovery of large quantities of currency notes, some of which were reportedly half-burnt, immediately raised serious questions about the source and ownership of the money. 
• Justice Yashwant Varma categorically denied any knowledge of the cash, stating that neither he nor his staff had removed or were aware of any currency being present in such quantities. 
• The incident prompted an immediate response from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, who called an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court collegium to discuss the matter. 
• As an initial administrative action, CJI Sanjiv Khanna instructed the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to stop assigning any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma, effectively placing him under an administrative hold. 
• A three-member committee comprising Chief Justices from Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh High Courts, and a judge from Karnataka High Court was constituted to conduct a thorough investigation. 
• The Supreme Court requested detailed information about security personnel posted at Justice Yashwant Varma's residence in the six months preceding the incident, indicating a comprehensive approach to the investigation. 
• The proposed transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma to his parent High Court in Allahabad emerged as a potential administrative measure in response to the controversial incident. 

What are the Origin and Legal Background of In-House Enquiry? 

Origin 

• The concept of In-House Enquiry emerged from the landmark case of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee 1995, where the Supreme Court recognized a critical gap in judicial accountability mechanisms. 
• The Supreme Court identified that impeachment is an extremely drastic remedy that should be reserved only for the most serious cases of judicial misconduct. 
• To state this limitation, the Court developed an alternative procedure specifically designed to handle less severe but still problematic judicial conduct that did not warrant full impeachment. 
• The 1995 judgment provides the need for a mechanism to "bad conduct inconsistent with the high office" that falls short of the constitutional threshold for removal. 
• A five-member committee was constituted to devise a procedure for taking remedial action against judges who deviate from accepted judicial values and life principles. 

What is the Process of In-House Enquiry?  

Before 2014 

• In 1995, the Supreme Court recognized a critical gap in holding judges accountable for misconduct that did not meet the high threshold of impeachment. 
• The landmark case of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee the "hiatus between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour". 
• A five-member committee was constituted in 1995, comprising Justices S.C. Agarwal, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha from the Supreme Court, and two senior-most High Court Chief Justices. 
• The committee's primary objective was to develop a mechanism for "taking suitable remedial action" against judges who deviate from accepted judicial values. 
• The initial procedure allowed for:  
  • Complaints to be received by Chief Justices or the CJI 
  • Preliminary screening of allegations 
  • Potential formation of an investigative committee 
  • Recommendations for administrative or disciplinary actions 
• The report was submitted in October 1997 and adopted with amendments in a full Supreme Court meeting in December 1999. 
• Before 2014, the process was relatively less structured and more discretionary, largely dependent on the interpretation of the CJI and senior judges. 

Process After 2014 

• A significant transformation occurred in 2014 when a sexual harassment complaint was filed against a sitting High Court judge by a woman additional district and sessions judge. 
• Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra comprehensively reviewed and restructured the in-house procedure, defining it through "seven specific steps". 
• The post-2014 process introduced more rigorous and systematic guidelines for handling judicial misconduct allegations:  
  • Mandatory forwarding of complaints to the CJI 
  • Mandatory preliminary assessment 
  • Structured investigation protocols 
  • Clear decision-making frameworks 
• Key improvements included:  
  • More transparent complaint mechanism 
  • Mandatory opportunity for the accused judge to respond 
  • Explicit powers for the investigating committee 
  • Clearly defined potential outcomes of the inquiry 
• The revised procedure established a more nuanced approach to handling judicial misconduct:  
  • Differentiation between minor and serious misconduct 
  • Specific protocols for advisory actions 
  • Clear escalation procedures 
  • Provisions for voluntary retirement or removal 
• The post-2014 process also :  
  • Principles of natural justice 
  • Confidentiality of proceedings 
  • Protecting judicial integrity 
  • Providing fair opportunity for explanation 
• The refined mechanism allowed for more flexible and proportionate responses to allegations, reducing the likelihood of unnecessarily dramatic impeachment proceedings. 
• The new framework empowered the CJI with more structured discretionary powers to states judicial misconduct while maintaining the dignity of the judicial institution. 

How Have Landmark Cases Shaped Judicial Accountability in India? 

• C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995)  
  • First landmark case that identified the gap between "bad behaviour" and "impeachable misbehaviour" 
  • The need for an internal mechanism to judicial misconduct 
  • Prompted the Supreme Court to develop the in-house inquiry procedure 
  • Arose from allegations of financial impropriety against Bombay High Court Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee 
  • Justices K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria noted the critical gap in holding judges accountable 
• Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2014)  
  • Emerged from a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting High Court judge 
  • Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra comprehensively reviewed the in-house procedure 
  • Defined a seven-step process for handling judicial misconduct allegations 
  • Provided more structured guidelines for investigating complaints against judges 
  • Established clearer protocols for judicial misconduct 
• Indra Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (2003)  
  • Significant case regarding the confidentiality of judicial inquiry reports 
  • Established that inquiry reports against judges should remain confidential 
  • States the need to protect the dignity of judicial proceedings 
  • Prevented public disclosure of internal judicial investigations 
  • the principle of maintaining institutional integrity 

What are the Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Impeachment? 

• Constitutional Articles Governing Impeachment  
  • Article 124(4) specifically provide the removal of Supreme Court judges 
  • Article 218 extends the same provisions to High Court judges 
  • Articles 124(5), 217, and 218 provide additional legal framework for judicial removal 
  • These constitutional provisions establish a comprehensive mechanism for judicial misconduct 
  • The articles ensure a balanced approach between judicial accountability and independence 
• Precise Grounds for Judicial Removal  
  • Only two specific grounds are recognized for impeachment:  
    • "Proved misbehaviour"  
    • "Incapacity" 
  • These terms are intentionally kept broad to provide flexibility 
    • "Proved misbehaviour" can include:  
    • Serious ethical violations 
    • Corruption 
    • Gross misconduct 
    • Actions undermining judicial integrity 
  • "Incapacity" may cover:  
    • Physical or mental health issues 
    • Inability to perform judicial functions 
    • Significant cognitive impairments 
• Parliamentary Approval and Procedural Requirements 
  • Initiation and Procedural Steps  
    • Impeachment motion can be initiated in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha 
    • Must be approved by the presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) 
    • Requires formation of a three-member investigation committee:  
      • One Supreme Court judge 
      • One High Court Chief Justice 
      • One eminent jurist 
    • Committee functions like a quasi-judicial trial court 
    • Conducts thorough investigation of allegations 
  • Voting and Approval Mechanisms  
    • Requires stringent voting requirements:  
      • Two-thirds majority of members present and voting, OR 
      • Absolute majority of total membership in each House 
    • Both Houses must pass the motion in the same parliamentary session 
    • Motion must be passed with required majority to be valid 
    • Presidential order for removal follows successful parliamentary vote 

Conclusion 

The in-house procedure demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to maintaining ethical standards while providing a fair mechanism to states misconduct. Depending on the committee's findings, Justice Yashwant Varma could face potential consequences ranging from advisory actions to potential removal proceedings. This process underscores the importance of accountability within the judicial system, ensuring that judges are held to the highest standards of professional conduct.