Polity & Governance: Justice Verma Controversy, Judicial Appointments, and Collegium System

Polity and Governance: Justice Verma Controversy and Judicial In-House Enquiry

  • News Highlights:

    • Chief Justice of India ordered an in-house inquiry into Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma after unaccounted cash was allegedly found at his residence following a fire.
    • A three-member committee was formed, consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman.
    • Transfer of Justice Varma to Allahabad High Court was proposed.

  • Background of the Controversy:

    • Fire broke out at Justice Yashwant Varma's residence on March 14, 2025, revealing unaccounted cash.
    • Justice Varma denied knowledge of the cash.
    • The Supreme Court sought security records of personnel posted at the judge's residence within the past six months.

  • Origin and Evolution of In-House Enquiry Mechanism:

    • Formally recognized in 1995 after the C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee case involving financial impropriety allegations against the Bombay High Court Chief Justice.
    • Addressed the gap between "bad behaviour" and "impeachable misbehaviour" under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
    • A five-member committee was formed to devise a procedure for handling judicial conduct not rising to the level of impeachment.
    • The committee's report in October 1997 was adopted by the Supreme Court in December 1999, establishing the in-house enquiry procedure.

  • Revised Procedure Post-2014 Case:

    • Additional District Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, MP HC (2014) led to a restructured seven-step framework for in-house enquiries.

  • Steps in the In-House Process:

    1. Complaint submitted to the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Chief Justice of India, or the President of India, then forwarded to the CJI.
    2. CJI assesses the complaint's merit and may request a preliminary report from the High Court Chief Justice.
    3. If credible, CJI constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.
    4. The inquiry committee determines its procedures, adhering to natural justice principles.
    5. Committee submits a report to the CJI, stating whether allegations are substantiated and warrant removal proceedings.
    6. If misconduct doesn't warrant removal, the CJI may issue an advisory and record findings for institutional purposes.
    7. If misconduct warrants removal, CJI advises resignation or retirement; if refused, the judge receives no further judicial work, and the President and Prime Minister are informed for formal removal proceedings.

  • Appointment and Removal of Judges

    • Appointment of Chief Justice of India:
      • Under Article 124(2), the President appoints based on the outgoing CJI's recommendation, traditionally by seniority.
    • Appointment of Supreme Court Judges:
      • Initiated by the CJI, who consults Collegium members. Written opinions are recorded and forwarded through the Law Minister and Prime Minister to the President.
    • Appointment of Chief Justice of High Court:
      • Based on the inter-State transfer policy, the SC Collegium selects a judge from outside the State.
    • Appointment of High Court Judges:
      • Initiated by the outgoing Chief Justice of the High Court in consultation with two senior-most judges. The recommendation goes to the Chief Minister and then to the Union Government for Collegium approval.
    • Constitutional Provisions on Judicial Impeachment:
      • Governed by Articles 124(4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
      • An impeachment motion requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, and more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
      • Grounds for removal include "proved misbehaviour" and "incapacity".

  • Removal Proceedings Against Indian Judges:

    • Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Impeachment motion failed to secure the required majority.
    • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Resigned before the impeachment motion could be taken up in the Lok Sabha.
    • Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015): Impeachment notice was not carried forward, and Justice Pardiwala expunged the remarks from the court record.
    • Justice S.K. Gangele (2015): The inquiry committee didn't find sufficient material evidence to support the allegations, and the motion was subsequently dropped.
    • Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (2017): The impeachment motion did not progress to the inquiry or voting stage.

  • Collegium System:

    • Definition: Judicially evolved mechanism for appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
    • Evolution:
      • First Judges Case (1981): Executive primacy.
      • Second Judges Case (1993): Judicial primacy.
      • Third Judges Case (1998): Formalized the five-member Collegium for appointments to the Supreme Court.
    • Role of the Executive: The Executive can seek reconsideration once but must accept Collegium reiteration.

  • 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014:

    • Objective: Replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    • Provisions Introduced:
      • Article 124A: Established the NJAC composition.
      • Article 124B: Outlined the functions of the NJAC.
      • Article 124C: Empowered Parliament to regulate the NJAC's procedures and functions through legislation.
    • Striking Down the NJAC (Fourth Judges Case, 2015):
      • Declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void.
      • Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India