CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme Court

While dismissing the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house committee report which indicted him in the unaccounted cash controversy, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister recommending the removal of the Judge.

The Court held that the provision (paragraph 7(ii)) in the in-house procedure formulated by the Supreme Court, requiring the CJI to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be "legal and valid."

"The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted. It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action. As observed before, it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124. Left to him, the CJI upon being informed of a Judge's remissness does have the authority – moral, ethical and legal – to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear," the Court observed.

The Court added that it is not aware if the CJI has indeed recommended the removal of Justice Varma, as the CJI's letter is not in the public domain. However, even if the CJI has made such a recommendataion, there is nothing wrong with that.

"We say again, we are unaware like the Petitioner of what the CJI remarked while forwarding the REPORT of the COMMITTEE and the Petitioner's response dated 6th May, 2025 to the President and the Prime Minister. However, if indeed, the CJI has reiterated the finding of the Committee as contained in the REPORT and recommended initiation of proceedings for removal of the Petitioner from office, such a recommendation cannot be impeached on any valid and legal ground. Notwithstanding that the recommendation of the CJI carries much weight, one has to realize that the intimation given by the CJI, under the PROCEDURE, is for the eyes of the President and the Prime Minister alone and not anyone else."

The Court also upheld the sanctity of the in-house procedure formulated in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).

Upholding the in-house procedure, it is observed: "If we were to accept the contention of Mr. Kapil Sibal, the Supreme Court and the CJI would be powerless to initiate any action even on the face of allegations of gross misconduct against a sitting Judge of a High Court which cannot be the legislative intention. To address the growing concern of incidents of misconduct, the PROCEDURE has been craftily designed to discipline Judges internally for such misconduct that is sufficient to tarnish the dignity of his office as well as the institution to which he belongs." 

In-house procedure fills constitutional gap where misbehaviour does not rise to the level contemplated in Article 124

The Court says the only formal ground for removal of a judge is either "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity", but not all misbehaviour of judges would rise to that level. The constitutional gap in such cases is filled by the in-house procedure.

"Given that the only formal mechanism for addressing judicial misbehaviour under the Constitution is impeachment by Parliament, it must be remembered that not all misbehaviour of Judges necessarily rise to the level of "proved misbehaviour" attracting Articles 217 and 218 read with clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124. The Constitution's silence on cases that do not rise to the level of proven misbehaviour creates a significant structural vulnerability, which has since been addressed by the PROCEDURE. The PROCEDURE acts as a check on judges' unbridled freedom of action and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or unjust."

In the writ petition filed by Justice Varma, constitutional issues were also raised regarding the CJI forwarding the in-house committee report and recommendating for the removal of the judge to the President and the Prime Minister if the judge does not resign or seek voluntary retirement. It was argued that because ex-CJI Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded the in-house committee report along with a recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma, this became a basis for the notice of impeachment to be initiated in the House of Parliament.

Rejecting these arguments, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih held that the CJI bears a "significant moral responsibility" as the foremost judicial officer to ensure that the judiciary of the country functions in a transparent, efficient and constitutionally appropriate manner. 

"The recognition that self-imposed ethical norms are integral to the judiciary's credibility, forms the cornerstone of the non-statutory but wholly legal internal procedure for maintaining discipline and, by extension, integrity of the institution. On this construction, we hold that the CJI's discretion as to whether, where and when to act, mindful of the substance in the complaints received, would obviously be a regulated discretion; but, once the ball is set rolling by the CJI, it must end with his recommendation/advice to the President and the Prime Minister depending on what the Committee records as its findings."

"Assuming arguendo that the CJI endorsed the findings in the REPORT submitted by the COMMITTEE and did recommend initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner for removal from office, we have no hesitation to say that the CJI is not a mere post office between the COMMITTEE and the President/the Prime Minister that the REPORT is to be forwarded without any remarks/recommendation. The CJI is clearly an important person, if not the most, in the larger scheme of maintaining institutional interest and credibility to ascertain whether a Judge has indulged in misconduct."

If in-house committee finds serious misconduct and suggests removal, CJI can endorse view 

Moreover, the Court goes on to observe that when the committee itself finds substance in the allegation and finds that the misconduct is serious enough to call for the initiation of the proceedings for removal, the CJI has the authority in the in-house procedure to endorse such views. 

"Pausing here for a moment, what else is the CJI expected to do, if he is of the view that the matter requires a deeper probe? We hasten to add that where the Committee itself (constituted by the CJI) finds substance in the allegations and the misconduct found is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal, the CJI does have the authority, in a fit and proper case, to endorse such finding while forwarding the report of inquiry."

In-house procedure not toothless, but no prejudice caused if CJI endorses the in-house committee report 

It observes that the in-house procedure is not "toothless" because it may trigger the initiation of impeachment proceedings, as acknowledged in Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya. 

But it rejects the petitioner's argument that the CJI forwarding the committee's report along with recommending initiation of the impeachment proceedings would cause prejudice in a manner that the members of the Parliament would be influenced. It is because the Judges Inquiry Act has its own specific mechanism, which is followed as per Article 124(5) of the Indian Constitution.

"Next, the argument that the Members of either or both houses of the Parliament could be influenced by the CJI's opinion is not acceptable since the opinion is not forwarded either to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. For arguments sake, even if it is assumed that Members of Parliament have had access to the recommendation/advice of the CJI, if any, nothing much turns on it. The Inquiry Act includes a specific mechanism which has to be statutorily followed before any address for impeachment is made in the House(s)."