Context:
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna initiated an unprecedented three-member in-house inquiry into the conduct of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court.
More on the News
This action follows allegations of wads of currency notes being found at Justice Varma’s official residence after a fire broke out on March 14, 2025.
The three-member inquiry committee comprises:
- Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia of Himachal Pradesh High Court.
- Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court.
In-House Procedure
- The in-house procedure is distinct from impeachment and was established to address allegations of “bad conduct” inconsistent with the high office of a judge and not meeting the higher threshold for impeachment.
- The need for an internal mechanism was felt in 1995, after allegations of financial impropriety surfaced against then Bombay High Court Chief Justice A M Bhattacharjee.
- In response, the Supreme Court constituted a five-member committee which submitted its report in October 1997. It was adopted with amendments in a full court meeting of the SC in December 1999.
- The in-house inquiry is aimed at ensuring accountability of judges for acts of omission or commission that do not meet the threshold for impeachment but are inconsistent with judicial conduct.
2014 Revision of the In-House Procedure:
- In 2014, the Supreme Court revisited the in-house procedure when a woman judge filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting High Court judge.
- Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra outlined a seven-step procedure for handling such complaints, highlighted below.
Procedure for In-House Inquiry:
- A complaint can be received by the CJI, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, or the President of India.
- If the complaint is deemed serious, a preliminary report is requested from the concerned High Court.
- If the report recommends a deeper probe, the CJI orders a three-member inquiry committee.
- The committee has the power to frame its own procedures and will provide the accused judge with an opportunity to explain their conduct.
- If the allegations are not serious, the CJI may advise the judge concerned and record the findings.
- If the allegations are deemed serious, the CJI may ask the judge to voluntarily retire or resign.
- If the judge refuses, the CJI will instruct the concerned High Court Chief Justice not to assign judicial work to the judge.
- The CJI will then inform the President and Prime Minister to initiate removal proceedings.
Significance of In-House Inquiry
- This process allows for internal checks without the need for the complex and often political impeachment procedure, ensuring that the judiciary remains impartial and transparent.
- By allowing the judiciary to self-regulate, this procedure helps maintain public trust in the judicial system.
- It highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards and high moral conduct.
Impeachment Process for a Supreme Court and High Court Judge:
Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India, a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can only be removed through impeachment by Parliament on the grounds of:
- Proved misbehaviour.
- Incapacity.
The impeachment motion should be supported by a majority of the total membership of each House of Parliament and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
After an address has been presented by Parliament, the President issues an order for removal of the impeached judge.