Understanding the legal precedent behind SC action against Delhi HC judge Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court’s decision to consider initiating an in-house inquiry against Delhi high court judge Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash recovery from his official residence has brought renewed attention to a landmark ruling that defines judicial accountability — K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991).

The five-judge Constitution bench in K Veeraswami ruled that judges of the Supreme Court and high courts fall under the definition of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the judgment laid down a crucial safeguard to ensure judicial independence – no investigation against a judge can proceed without the prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

“The purpose of grant of previous sanction before prosecuting a public servant including a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court is to protect the Judge from unnecessary harassment and frivolous prosecution more particularly to save the Judge from the biased prosecution for giving judgment in a case which goes against the Government or its officers though based on good reasons and rule of law,” held this verdict.

The rationale behind this ruling was to strike a delicate balance between accountability and protecting judges from politically motivated or frivolous allegations that could undermine judicial independence. The court held that judicial officers must be held accountable for corruption and misconduct but emphasised that their independence should not be compromised by external pressures.

Under India’s constitutional framework, judges of the higher judiciary enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through impeachment by Parliament. Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution lay down the removal process, which requires a motion passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, based on proven misbehavior or incapacity. However, the in-house mechanism devised by the Supreme Court in 1999 serves as an intermediary accountability mechanism, allowing the judiciary to internally examine allegations against judges before any impeachment process is considered.

As per the in-house procedure formulated by the Supreme Court in 1999, when allegations of impropriety or corruption surface against a constitutional court judge, the CJI first seeks the judge’s response. If unsatisfied, the CJI can set up an inquiry committee comprising an SC judge and two high court chief justices to examine the matter further. The findings of such a probe could pave the way for parliamentary removal proceedings.

In Justice Varma’s case, people aware of the issue indicate that while his transfer was an immediate measure, the collegium members felt that more stringent steps were necessary given the gravity of the situation. An in-house inquiry, which is now being contemplated by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, will determine whether further action is warranted.

Legal experts believe that the K Veeraswami ruling remains a cornerstone of judicial accountability in India and will likely be a reference point in any further proceedings involving justice Varma. If the inquiry panel finds substantive grounds against him, the findings could potentially lead to further disciplinary measures or even set the stage for parliamentary impeachment.

The developments in justice Varma’s case could also reignite debate on judicial reforms and the need for greater transparency in handling allegations against sitting judges.