Justice Varma impeachment: Why the government’s reported plan to bypass the Judges (Inquiry) Act procedure should concern us

REPORTEDLY, THE UNION GOVERNMENT IS SET to introduce an impeachment motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court (and previously in the Delhi High Court) in whose Delhi residence sacks of burnt currency were discovered in March. The government is reportedly reaching out to opposition leaders to build consensus for Justice Varma’s removal.

The in-house committee formed by the then Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’), Sanjiv Khanna, reportedly indicted Justice Varma, observing that the allegations against him were credible and warranted an  impeachment. Justice Varma reportedly did not heed the advice of the CJI to resign. The CJI thus sent a letter to the President and Prime Minister to impeach Justice Varma.

However, the manner in which the government is approaching the removal of Justice Varma is troubling for several reasons. 

Firstly, the government is creating the impression that it is authorised or has the jurisdiction to initiate the removal of a judge, which is not true. 

Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) are authorised to sign a motion to remove a judge. In the case of the Lok Sabha, a total of 100 MPs must sign the motion and in the case of the Rajya Sabha, a total of 50 MPs must sign the motion. The government has no role in this process. Once the motion is signed and submitted to the Speaker or the Chairperson, as the case may be, the decision to accept or reject it lies with them.

Secondly, the government believes there is no need for a committee to investigate allegations against Justice Varma under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, as an in-house inquiry committee has already submitted a report. The Times of India, citing government sources, reported this.  

This understanding by the government appears incorrect and could undermine not only Justice Varma’s right to a fair procedure but also the 1968 Act, a legislation deriving its strength from the Constitution. The government is mistaken in conflating an in-house inquiry with the inquiry contemplated under the 1968 Act. The two inquiries differ not only in their mandate and powers but also in their purpose.

Thirdly, the government has not shared a copy of the in-house report with MPs, who, under the law, are authorised to sign the motion to initiate the removal of a judge. In the absence of the report, MPs cannot form an informed decision on whether to initiate removal proceedings against Justice Varma. They cannot be expected to act without evidence.