GS II-Judiciary
Context
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) recently initiated a three-member in-house inquiry into allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, leading to his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. This has reignited discussions on judicial transparency.
Judicial Transfers in India
- Constitutional Basis: Article 222 of the Indian Constitution grants the President the power to transfer High Court judges based on recommendations from the CJI, with no requirement for the judge’s consent.
- CJI’s Role & Collegium Process: The transfer process is initiated by the CJI, who consults the Chief Justices of both the current and receiving High Courts, along with relevant Supreme Court judges. For Chief Justices of High Courts, the decision is made collectively by the Collegium, which comprises the CJI and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
- Factors Considered: Transfers are based on factors such as judicial performance, health conditions, and personal location preferences.
- Government Approval: The Law Ministry forwards the Collegium’s recommendation to the Prime Minister, who then advises the President for final approval.
- Final Notification: Once approved, the Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law issues an official Gazette notification, informing the concerned Chief Justices and state authorities.
In-House Inquiry Mechanism
This internal system examines complaints against sitting Supreme Court and High Court judges for misconduct that does not warrant impeachment.
Origins & Evolution
- Established in 1999 following the C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharji (1995) case, after a five-member committee in 1997 suggested procedural guidelines for handling judicial misconduct.
- Strengthened in 2014 in response to a sexual harassment case, leading to a structured seven-step inquiry framework.
- Clarified in Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General, Madhya Pradesh HC (2014), further detailing the internal inquiry process.
Inquiry Process
| Step | Description |
| Complaint Received | The Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court receives a complaint. |
| Preliminary Scrutiny | The CJI or HC Chief Justice examines the complaint and may seek a preliminary report. |
| Formation of Inquiry Committee | If needed, a three-member committee is constituted: – For HC judges: 2 Chief Justices of High Courts + 1 HC judge. – For SC judges: 3 sitting Supreme Court judges. |
| Inquiry Proceedings | The committee follows principles of natural justice, allowing the judge to respond before concluding its findings. |
| Report Submission | The committee submits its report to the CJI for further action. |
| Possible Outcomes | If minor misconduct is found, the judge may be advised to resign. If serious misconduct is established, the CJI may recommend impeachment. If allegations lack merit, the case is dismissed. |
| Further Action | If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI may instruct the HC Chief Justice to restrict judicial work. If necessary, impeachment proceedings may be initiated. |
Challenges in the In-House Inquiry & Judge Removal Process
- Lack of Transparency – Inquiry findings are not made public.
- No Direct Removal Power – The Judiciary cannot remove judges; only Parliament can through impeachment.
- Impeachment Complexity – The impeachment process is cumbersome, making judicial removal rare (e.g., Justice V. Ramaswami, 1991).
- Absence of Criminal Proceedings – Judges found guilty of misconduct face no legal prosecution under this system.
- Political Influence in Impeachment – Parliamentary decisions on judicial removal can be politically motivated.
- Delayed Proceedings – Prolonged inquiries erode public confidence in judicial accountability.
Notable Judicial Inquiry Cases in India
- Justice V. Ramaswami (1991) – First judge to face impeachment, but Parliament did not approve his removal.
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) – Found guilty of financial misconduct; resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote.
- Justice S.N. Shukla (2022) – In-house inquiry found him guilty, but impeachment did not follow.
- Justice Yashwant Varma (2025) – Currently under scrutiny for alleged financial misconduct after burnt currency notes were discovered at his residence.
Proposed Reforms
- Public Disclosure of Inquiry Reports – Enhances judicial transparency and accountability.
- Strengthened Oversight – Establish a Judicial Standards and Accountability Commission for ethical regulation.
- Alternative Disciplinary Measures – Introduce suspensions, fines, and other penalties beyond impeachment.
- Time-Bound Investigations – Expedite inquiries to maintain judicial credibility.
- Permanent Investigative Body – A specialized authority, akin to the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, to oversee judicial ethics.
- Revisiting NJAC Debate – Reassess the need for a National Judicial Appointments Commission to improve judicial accountability and transparency.