Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Indian judiciary faces a critical test of its internal accountability mechanisms as the Chief Justice of India has recommended impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma following allegations of unaccounted cash discovered at his residence during a fire incident. This unprecedented scenario highlights the tension between judicial independence and accountability, exposing the rarely invoked constitutional provisions for removing judges from higher judiciary. 

What is the Background of Justice Yashwant Varma's Case? 

• The controversy erupted on 14th March, 2025, when firefighters allegedly discovered sacks of unaccounted cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence in New Delhi during a fire incident.  
• Justice Yashwant Varma categorically denied knowledge of any such money, claiming neither he nor his staff were aware of currency in such quantities. 
• Following the discovery, CJI Sanjiv Khanna called an extraordinary meeting of the Supreme Court collegium to discuss the serious allegations.  
• The incident triggered immediate administrative action - Justice Yashwant Varma was relieved from judicial duties at the Delhi High Court.  
  • This swift response highlights the judiciary's recognition of the gravity of allegations involving financial impropriety against a sitting judge. 
• On 22nd March, 2025, the CJI formally constituted a three-member committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge of Karnataka High Court) to conduct a thorough investigation under the in-house procedure.  
• The Supreme Court also 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. 

What are Recent Developments and Judicial Observations? 

• The three-member inquiry committee submitted its report on 3rd May, 2025, finding substantial credence in the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. Based on these findings, CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly sought Justice Yashwant Varma's voluntary resignation as a measure to preserve judicial dignity and avoid the more drastic impeachment process.  
  • This approach aligns with previous instances where judges facing serious allegations were given the option to resign before formal proceedings commenced. 
• Justice Yashwant Varma, however, refused to resign - a decision that marks a departure from previous cases like Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice P.D. Dinakaran who chose resignation when faced with similar circumstances. His refusal necessitated escalation to the next stage of accountability mechanisms. 
  • On 9th May, 2025, the CJI formally forwarded the committee's report along with Justice Yashwant Varma's response to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending initiation of removal proceedings.  
  • An official release confirmed that the CJI, "in terms of the In-House Procedure, has written to" both the President and PM "enclosing therewith copy of the 3-Member Committee report dated 03.05.2025 along with the letter/response dated 06.05.2025 received from Mr Justice Yashwant Varma." 
• This referral to the constitutional authorities represents the judiciary's recognition that the matter has crossed the threshold of internal disciplinary action and warrants consideration for the more severe constitutional remedy of impeachment. 
• The case now enters the political domain, where parliamentary mechanisms will determine whether formal impeachment proceedings should commence. 

What is Impeachment? 

• Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism designed to remove judges of higher judiciary (Supreme Court and High Courts) for proven misbehavior or incapacity. The process represents the judiciary's commitment to maintaining ethical standards while providing a fair mechanism to address misconduct. 
• The impeachment process emerged from the need to balance judicial independence with accountability. The landmark case of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee (1995) identified the critical gap between "bad behaviour" and "impeachable misbehaviour," prompting the development of an in-house inquiry procedure as a preliminary step.  
  • This mechanism acknowledges that while impeachment is an extremely drastic remedy reserved for the most serious cases, there must still be a way to address judicial misconduct falling short of the constitutional threshold for removal. 
• Unlike removal procedures for other public officials, judicial impeachment is intentionally designed to be rigorous and difficult, protecting judges from politically motivated removals while still providing mechanisms for accountability in cases of genuine misconduct.  
• The process combines both judicial scrutiny through the inquiry committee and parliamentary oversight through voting requirements, ensuring thorough examination of allegations before a judge can be removed. 

What are the Constitutional Provisions for Impeachment? 

• The constitutional framework for judicial impeachment is deliberately designed to be rigorous, balancing the need for accountability with protections against politically motivated removals. Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution govern this process, establishing a comprehensive mechanism for addressing serious judicial misconduct. 
• Article 124(4) specifically provides for removal of Supreme Court judges, while Article 218 extends these provisions to High Court judges. The Constitution recognizes only two specific grounds for impeachment: 
  • "Proved misbehaviour" - This intentionally broad term can encompass serious ethical violations, corruption, gross misconduct, and actions undermining judicial integrity. 
  • "Incapacity" - This may cover physical or mental health issues that render a judge unable to perform judicial functions effectively. 

The impeachment process involves several carefully structured stages: 

• Initiation of impeachment motion in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, which must be approved by the presiding officer (Speaker/Chairman) 
• Formation of a three-member investigation committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and an eminent jurist 
• The committee functions as a quasi-judicial trial court, conducting thorough investigation of allegations with principles of natural justice 
• Parliamentary approval requiring either:  
  • Two-thirds majority of members present and voting, OR 
  • Absolute majority of total membership in each House 
• Both Houses must pass the motion with the required majority in the same parliamentary session 
• Presidential order for removal follows successful parliamentary vote 

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, provides additional procedural framework for the investigation phase, ensuring both thoroughness and fairness. This legislative complement to the constitutional provisions demonstrates Parliament's role in operationalizing the accountability mechanisms established in the Constitution. 

What are the Notable Judicial Impeachment Cases in India? 

Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) 

• First Supreme Court judge to face impeachment for extravagant spending 
• Found guilty by panel, but impeachment failed in Lok Sabha due to Congress abstentions 
• CJI stopped allocating work until retirement, but he retained benefits 

Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) 

• Judge of Calcutta High Court found guilty of misappropriating ₹33.23 lakh 
• First judge voted for removal by Rajya Sabha with overwhelming majority 
• Resigned before Lok Sabha could vote, avoiding full accountability 

Justice P.D. Dinakaran 

• Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court faced 16 charges, including land appropriation 
• Resigned on first day of panel's sitting, preventing completion of investigation 
• Case highlighted accountability loophole allowing escape through resignation 

Justice S.K. Gangele (2015) 

• Faced sexual harassment allegations 
• Inquiry committee ultimately cleared him of all wrongdoing 

Justice Dipak Misra (2018) 

• First impeachment motion against a sitting Chief Justice of India 
• Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the motion at preliminary stage 
• Sparked debate about judiciary's independence and impeachment process 

What is the Resignation Loophole in Judicial Accountability? 

• A significant limitation of the current impeachment process is that if a judge resigns before completion of proceedings, the investigation typically stops, and they retain retirement benefits. This contrasts with other public officials who face accountability even after leaving office.  
• RTI revelations from the Dinakaran case highlighted concerns that allowing resignations to end investigations creates an "absurd situation" not intended by the legislature. 

Conclusion 

Justice Yashwant Varma's case represents a watershed moment for judicial accountability in India, testing both constitutional impeachment mechanisms and the judiciary's self-regulatory capacity. The CJI's unprecedented recommendation for impeachment underscores the seriousness of financial misconduct allegations while highlighting existing accountability gaps, particularly the resignation loophole. Regardless of outcome, this case will likely shape future judicial accountability discourse in India's democratic framework.