Justice Yashwant Varma and the Fire Incident Inquiry
Internal Inquiry vs Impeachment: How India Addresses Judicial Misconduct: On March 22, 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna ordered a confidential probe into Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma. This action followed a fire at the judge’s official residence on March 14, where investigators reportedly discovered large amounts of unexplained cash. The investigation is not a constitutional impeachment but part of the judiciary’s in-house mechanism, which handles serious ethical concerns that fall short of formal removal grounds.
Impeachment Process: Article 124(4) of the Constitution
India’s Constitution provides a rigid process for removing judges from the Supreme Court or High Courts. As per Article 124(4) (for SC judges) and Article 218 (for HC judges), removal is only permitted in cases of proven misbehavior or incapacity. The procedure requires approval by both Houses of Parliament, with a special majority: two-thirds of the members present and voting, plus more than 50% of the total strength of each House. Once approved, the President of India finalizes the removal. However, if Parliament dissolves during the process, the motion lapses.
In-House Inquiry: A Mid-Level Disciplinary System
Not every form of misconduct requires impeachment. In 1995, Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee of the Bombay High Court was accused of unethical conduct. Lacking a formal route to deal with such mid-level issues, the Supreme Court in 1997 (C. Ravichandran Iyer case) proposed an internal system to investigate judicial misbehavior. This led to the formulation of the in-house ethics protocol, formally adopted in 1999, ensuring that judges could be held accountable without invoking full constitutional procedures.
How the In-House Ethics System Functions
An in-house investigation may begin upon receiving a written complaint from the Chief Justice of India, a Chief Justice of a High Court, or the President of India. Upon preliminary examination, if the issue seems serious, the CJI appoints a three-member panel—usually comprising senior judges from other High Courts. The accused judge is allowed to respond in accordance with natural justice. The panel’s findings are submitted to the CJI, who may advise the judge to step down. If the judge refuses, the CJI may recommend impeachment to the President.
Balancing Judicial Accountability and Independence
This internal mechanism plays a vital role in ensuring that the credibility of the judiciary is protected while avoiding premature or excessive action. It allows for timely accountability without compromising the independence of judges—a cornerstone of democratic governance. When serious allegations arise, like in Justice Varma’s case, such systems assure the public that proper action is being taken, thereby preserving public confidence in judicial integrity.
STATIC GK SNAPSHOT
Internal Inquiry vs Impeachment: How India Addresses Judicial Misconduct:
Topic | Details |
Article for SC Judge Removal | Article 124(4) |
Article for HC Judge Removal | Article 218 |
Valid Grounds for Removal | Proven misbehavior or incapacity |
Majority Required in Parliament | Two-thirds of those present & voting + 50% of total strength of each House |
Landmark Case Leading to Reforms | C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) |
Formal In-House Procedure Started | December 1999 |
Original Committee Members | Justices S.C. Agarwal, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, P.S. Mishra, D.P. Mohapatra |
2025 Case Highlight | Investigation of Justice Yashwant Varma due to cash recovery post fire |