Source – The Indian Express  

Introduction 

The evolution of judicial accountability in India presents a complex interplay between constitutional independence and legal responsibility. The landmark K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) (K. Veeraswami case) fundamentally altered the landscape for prosecuting judges, establishing procedural safeguards that continue to influence contemporary judicial governance. This systematic timeline analysis examines key developments from the original case through recent controversies, highlighting the ongoing tension between judicial protection and public accountability. 

What Were the Origins and Constitutional Questions in the Veeraswami Case ? 

Rule From 1976-1979 

• Justice K. Veeraswami served as Chief Justice of Madras High Court from May 1969 to April 1976. 
• Allegations surfaced that he "was in possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate by Rs. 6,41,416.36 to known sources of income." 
• The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR against the sitting Chief Justice. 
• Justice Veeraswami went on leave couple of months before retirement due to corruption allegations. 

1979-1991 

• In 1979, a full Bench of Madras High Court refused to quash the investigation in a 2-1 ruling. 
• Justice Veeraswami appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of prosecuting a sitting judge. 
• The Supreme Court had to determine "whether a judge of a High Court or of the SC is a 'public servant' for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947." 
• The core constitutional question addressed was "who is the 'competent authority' to grant sanction to prosecute the public servant." 

What Did the 1991 Supreme Court Ruling Establish? 

Constitutional Framework Established: 

• The Supreme Court held in a 3-2 verdict that "while a judge can be considered a public servant for a corruption case to be registered against him, the sanction must come from the Chief Justice of India (CJI)." 
• The Court emphasized that "there is no master and servant relationship or employer and employee relationship between a Judge and the President of India." 
• The government's argument that "unlike the President and Governors, there is no immunity for judges of the higher judiciary under the Constitution" was partially accepted with conditions. 

Protection Mechanism Created: 

• The inclusion of the Chief Justice of India as sanctioning authority was designed to "ring-fence the prosecution of judges against executive interference." 
• Ordinarily sanction is granted by appointing authority, but judges received special constitutional protection due to their independent role. 
• The ruling established that CJI's prior sanction is mandatory before any criminal investigation can proceed against a sitting judge. 

How Has the Sanction Mechanism Been Applied in Practice (1991-2025)? 

Limited Historical Application: 

• "This power has been used sparingly by the CJI" since the 1991 ruling was established. 
• For nearly three decades, no CJI granted sanction for criminal prosecution of any sitting judge. 
• The protective framework effectively prevented executive harassment while potentially creating barriers to accountability. 

First Practical Application (2019): 

• "In 2019, for the first time, then CJI Ranjan Gogoi gave permission to the CBI to register an FIR against Justice S N Shukla of the Allahabad High Court." 
• The case involved "alleged favours to a private medical college for MBBS admissions." 
• "Justice Gogoi's predecessor, CJI Dipak Misra, had recommended the impeachment of Justice Shukla, but the government did not act on it." 
• This marked the singular use of the Veeraswami framework in over 25 years of its existence. 

What are the Current Challenges and Recent Developments? 

The Justice Yashwant Varma Controversy: 

• "Justice Varma, a judge of the Delhi High Court at the time the cash was found but who has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, was indicted by the in-house inquiry on May 8." 
• An in-house inquiry was conducted regarding "unaccounted cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma this March." 
• "The SC dismissed a petition seeking an FIR and a criminal investigation against him and told the petitioners that the report of the inquiry had already been forwarded to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi." 

Constitutional Crisis and Criticism: 

• Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar stated that "the in-house inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court into the unaccounted cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma this March 'does not have any constitutional premise or legal sanctity.'" 
• Dhankhar "sought an FIR against the judge" and called for "revisiting the SC's K Veeraswami judgment, which he said has 'erected a scaffolding of impunity' around the judiciary." 
• The Vice President's criticism represents the highest-level challenge to the Veeraswami framework since its establishment. 

What Are the Systemic Inadequacies in Current Judicial Accountability? 

Impeachment Process Failures: 

• "The only procedure prescribed in the Constitution is the removal of a judge through impeachment." 
• "In the 75 years since the SC and the Constitution came into being, not a single attempt at impeachment has been successful." 
• "There has been a view that even initiating the process of impeachment has not been a sufficient deterrent." 

Alternative Mechanisms and Limitations: 

• "The SC developed the mechanism of the in-house inquiry, in which the Chief Justice of India (CJI) sets up a panel of judges to verify if there is a prima facie case against a judge." 
• "The finding of this panel, too, has to go to the executive for impeachment to be initiated." 
• The CJI has "limited powers to deal with errant judges beyond transferring or withdrawing work from the judge." 
• In-house inquiries serve as signals but lack independent enforcement mechanisms for meaningful accountability. 

Conclusion 

The systematic timeline reveals a judicial accountability framework that has evolved from constitutional necessity but remains structurally inadequate. The Veeraswami ruling, while protecting judicial independence from executive interference, has created practical barriers to addressing judicial misconduct. The recent Varma case and Vice Presidential criticism highlight the urgent need for constitutional reform that balances independence with accountability. The current system's reliance on impeachment—never successfully executed—and the CJI's discretionary sanction power—used only once in three decades—demonstrates the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to maintain public confidence in judicial integrity.