Why CJI Sanjiv Khanna Sent Inquiry Report On Justice Yashwant Varma To President & PM - Understanding In-House Procedure

Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, today forwarded the report submitted by a three-judge panel, which held the in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in relation to the alleged discovery of unauthorised currency notes at his official residence, to the President of India and the Prime Minister. 

While there is no information about the findings of the report, the fact that the CJI has forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister impliedly means certain things for certain:

1. The three-judge panel has found the allegations against Justice Varma true.

2. The CJI, having agreed to the contents of the report, asked Justice Varma to either resign or seek a voluntary retirement, but Justice Varma refused. 

The in-house procedure developed in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), and Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya (2015) explains the following on what happens when the Committee finds an allegation against a judge to be true. 

To summarise, in the initial stage:

1. When a complaint is received by the CJI, and if he finds it frivolous or directly related to the merits of the substantive decision or does not involve any serious complaint of misconduct or impropriety, he shall leave it as it is.

2. If the CJI finds it prima facie true, he seeks comments of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court has to ask for a response from the concerned judge against whom the allegation is made. Both documents are then forwarded to the CJI.

If the Chief Justice of the High Court prima facie finds allegations are true against the concerned judge, he shall file his response to the CJI. Upon receiving the response and in light of the allegations, if the CJI thinks that the allegations require a deeper investigation, a three-member Committee of two Chief Justices of High Courts other than the High Court to which the judge belongs and one High Court judge should be constituted. 

In this case, at all levels, the allegations against Justice Varma were found to be meriting a deeper inquiry. Therefore, a three-member committee comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was constituted by the CJI.

At this stage, the judicial work can also be withdrawn from the concerned judge.  

What does the Committee do?

The three-member Committee has to conclude and submit a report to the CJI in terms of three choices: 

1. There is no substance in the allegations contained in the complaint or, 

2. There is sufficient substance in the allegations contained in the complaint, and the misconduct disclosed is so serious that it calls for the initiation of proceedings for removal of the Judge, or

3. There is substance in the allegations contained in the complaint but the misconduct disclosed is not of such a serious nature as to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Judge. In this scenario, the CJI shall call the judge and advise accordingly.

Once a report is prepared, it shall be furnished to the concerned judge as well. 

What happens when the Committee finds serious misconduct?

It is only when the Committee finds that there is substance in the allegation contained in the complaint and the misconduct so serious that it calls for the removal of the judge, the CJI shall take the following course:

1. Ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement;

2. If the judge does neither of the following, the CJI shall again reiterate that no judicial work should be assigned to the judge. He must then write it to the President and the Prime Minister that the judicial work against the judge has been withdrawn because of serious allegations as found by the Committee to be so serious as to warrant the initiation of removal proceedings. 

A copy of the report may also be submitted to the President and the Prime Minister. 

Since the CJI in this case has written to the President and the Prime Minister, it can be safely implied that the judge has refused to resign.

Similarly, in the case against former judge, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, allegations of misappropriation were found true by the then CJI and a three-judge panel. Since Justice Sen refused to resign, the then Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, wrote to the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recommending the removal of Justice Sen.

It should be noted that in Justice Sen's case, after the report of the three-member Committee, he had sought for a personal hearing requesting for reconsideration of the decision of his removal. Then the Supreme Court Collegium sat and reiterated the same advise which was not followed. 

The role of the CJI ends when he writes to the President and PM

It should be noted that the in-house procedure headed by the CJI comes to an end when the CJI writes to the President and the Prime Minister recommending the removal of a judge. This is because, as per Article 124, the removal of a judge has to be done by the appointing authority,  the President. 

1. A judge can only be removed from office under Articles 124 and 217 through impeachment proceedings in the Parliament on grounds of "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity".

2.For this, a notice of impeachment has to be sponsored by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, the Presiding Officer of the concerned House can constitute a Committee of three persons. This will be governed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

3. The Committee consists of the CJI/Judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and one person who is a distinguished jurist. If the Committee finds an allegation report, the report is tabled in the House for discussion and voting.

4. As per the impeachment proceedings, the majority of the House and a majority of not less than 2/3rd present and voting should agree to the removal of the judge. It should be noted that the concerned judge can make a representation before the Parliament.

5. Once the impeachment resolution is successful, it requires a formal order from the President.

Past instances

In Justice Sen's case, he had resigned when the impeachment proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the proceedings were dropped eventually. 

In the case related to the allegations of sexual harassment of a lady judicial officer by a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a three-member inquiry committee was constituted by the Rajya Sabha. In 2017, the Committee comprising Justice R Banumathi, Supreme Court judge, Justice Manjula Chellur, former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, and senior advocate KK Venugopal, held all three charges against the said Judge as “not proved”.

So far, we have seen failed impeachment proceedings against Justice V Ramaswami in 1993 and Justice Soumitra Sen in 2011.

In 2018, the then CJI Dipak Misra had written to the President and the Prime Minister about the then in-house inquiry findings against the then Allahabad HC Justice Narayan Shukla. However, the impeachment proceedings were not initiated against him, and he eventually retired without judicial work in 2020, drawing full salary. After his retirement, the CBI lodged an FIR against him in 2023, for alleged amassment of disproportionate wealth during his service as a Judge.

Also Read - Explained | Can FIR Be Registered Against A Sitting Judge? What Is In-House Enquiry Procedure On Complaint Against Judge?