Judicial Accountability in Focus: CJI Initiates Probe Against Delhi HC Judge

(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained, Page – 16)

Analysis of the news:                                 

Process of Judge Removal

• The impeachment of a High Court or Supreme Court judge is governed by Article 124(4) and Article 218 of the Constitution.
• A judge can be removed by Parliament on grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” through a motion that requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses.
• Once approved, the President issues the final removal order. However, parliamentary dissolution can halt the process.

Need for an In-House Procedure

• Judicial accountability gaps became evident in 1995 when financial misconduct allegations surfaced against Bombay HC Chief Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee.
• The Supreme Court, in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, highlighted the absence of mechanisms to address “bad conduct inconsistent with judicial office” that does not meet the high threshold of impeachment.
• To bridge this gap, in 1997, a five-member committee formulated an in-house procedure for handling complaints against judges.
• It was officially adopted in 1999 to uphold judicial ethics without resorting to impeachment.

Revisions in 2014: Seven-Step Process

Following a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting judge in 2014, the Supreme Court outlined a seven-step in-house procedure in ADJ ‘X’ v. Registrar General, HC of Madhya Pradesh:

1. Complaints can be received by the CJI, Chief Justice of an HC, or the President.
   
   
2. If deemed serious, the CJI may seek a preliminary report from the concerned HC Chief Justice.
   
   
3. If a deeper probe is warranted, a three-member inquiry committee (two HC Chief Justices, one HC judge) is constituted.
   
   
4. The inquiry follows natural justice principles, allowing the accused judge to respond.
   
   
5. The committee submits a report to the CJI, stating whether misconduct occurred and its severity.
   
   
6. If misconduct is minor, the CJI may advise the judge. If serious, the CJI may recommend resignation or voluntary retirement.
   
   
7. If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI informs the President and Prime Minister, initiating formal removal proceedings.
   
   

Current Status of Justice Varma’s Case

• CJI Khanna has already instructed the Delhi HC Chief Justice not to assign judicial work to Justice Varma, signaling a serious investigation.
• If the inquiry finds substantial evidence of misconduct, further actions including impeachment may follow.

Conclusion

• This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to internal accountability while maintaining constitutional integrity.
• The outcome will influence future judicial oversight mechanisms and reinforce public trust in the judicial system.