Time is running out for Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma as the government prepares ground to initiate an impeachment motion. The move comes months after the Supreme Court’s internal committee indicted Justice Varma over unaccounted cash found at his official residence when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government is in the process of getting the requisite signatures from members of the opposition to introduce the motion in the house during the Parliament’s monsoon session slated to begin on July 21.
However, Rijiju said it is still undecided whether the motion will be introduced in the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha.
So what does this mean for Justice Varma?
What Led to Justice Varma's Impeachment?
Unaccounted cash was discovered at Justice Yashwant Varma’s Delhi residence after a fire broke out on March 14.
According to the rules, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. The panel was tasked with finding answers to three questions: Was burnt currency found in the storeroom of Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi? Was the storeroom within the premises of the official residence? Can Justice Varma account for the cash found?
The probe panel in its May 3 report submitted to then CJI Khanna concluded that “cash/money was found in the storeroom of 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi officially occupied by Justice (Yashwant) Varma”, “the source of which could not be accounted for” and that the judge along with his family had “access to the storeroom (where the cash was kept) has been found”.
The panel, in its 64-page report, concluded with the recommendation of Justice Varma's impeachment.
Is This Report Final?
No. The Supreme Court’s inquiry report is not final. It is merely a preliminary report. The threshold to impeach a judge is deliberately set high. The Supreme Court in its 1991 Committee on Judicial Accountability judgment observed that the process to remove a judge—a constitutionally protected position—is an exceptional process that must not be triggered by vague reasons.
Addressing a press conference, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said SC's internal inquiry report has “no constitutional relevance”. Only a probe, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 will be considered.
Understanding The Impeachment Process?
A Supreme Court or High Court judge cannot be fired. Only the President can remove them from their post once they are impeached by the Parliament.
According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a removal motion requires signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs for its admission. If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker or the Vice President – the chairman of Rajya Sabha, will constitute a three-member committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of High Court, and an eminent jurist who will probe the allegations levelled against the judge sought to be impeached.
The committee will be granted three months to complete its probe. An extension may be given on request. Once the committee’s report is ready, it will be submitted and presented in the house where the motion was passed.
If the judge is clear of any wrongdoing, nothing happens and they continue working as usual. However, if the judge is found guilty, then the report is taken up for consideration and voted upon by both houses.
The motion to remove a judge needs a special majority in both houses. A special majority means a majority of the total membership of the house and a two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
If the motion is adopted, then, the “misbehaviour or incapacity” of the Judge shall be “deemed to have been proved” and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented to the President.
The President then issues the order removing the judge from their position.
What Does Justice Yashwant Varma have to say?
Justice Varma has claimed that he is a victim of a conspiracy and asserted that “he faces the uphill task of disproving a fact which is presumed to be prima-facie true”. The judge also objected to the issues framed by the then CJI, Sanjiv Khanna that formed the basis of the investigation against him.
The issues indicate a presumption of guilt which he is being asked to refute, the judge said in his 101-page response to the probe panel. The judge further submitted that “since there is no cogent incriminating evidence/material on record”, it was for the Committee to first discover the truth in regard to each allegation.
In a strongly worded letter dated May 6, Justice Varma also declined then CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s advice to resign or seek voluntary retirement. “To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust and requiring reconsideration and review,” Justice Varma wrote in his letter addressed to then CJI Khanna.
However, as mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court’s internal inquiry probe is not final. Justice Varma will get two more chances to defend himself.
The Parliamentary Committee—constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968—will frame definite charges against the Judge which will outline the scope of the investigation.
“Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on which each such charge is based shall be communicated to the Judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a written statement of defence within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Committee,” the act reads.
Justice Varma will get his second opportunity before the parliament during the debate on the motion of impeachment. According to precedents, the judge will be allowed to open the debate before the MPs debate on the impeachment motion.
Has a judge even been impeached?
Over the years several motions to impeach a judge have been introduced in the Parliament, but till date, not a single judge has been impeached.
In 1991, Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami became the first judge to face impeachment motions in independent India over financial misconduct. However, despite being found guilty of 11 of the 14 charges brought against him, the motion to impeach him in May 1993 failed when Congress abstained from voting. Of the 401 members in the house, 196 backed the motion and 205 abstained. Justice Ramaswami ultimately retired in February 1994 with full benefits.
In 2009 and 2011, two judges – Karnataka High Court judge PD Dinakaran and Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen were faced with impeachment motions over financial irregularities. However, both resigned before the motion could go through. Justice Dinakaran resigned just as the committee began its probe against him, while Justice Sen resigned before the motion could pass Lok Sabha muster (Rajya Sabha had already passed the motion).
In 2015, Madhya Pradesh High Court judge SK Gangele faced impeachment over allegations of sexual misconduct against a subordinate female judge. However, Justice Gangele was given a clean chit and he retired in July 2018.
Ex-CJI Dipak Misra, and ex-judges CV Nagarjuna also faced impeachment motions when they were in office. However, the motions failed since they did not pass parliamentary muster.
In another case, then-CJI Dipak Misra in 2018 had recommended the president to initiate impeachment proceedings against Allahabad High Court judge SN Shukla after an internal committee found substance in charges of judicial impropriety and misconduct. However, the government sat on the recommendation and Justice Shukla retired two and half years later. He was not assigned any judicial work in those years before his retirement.
More recently, an impeachment motion was moved against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav for his controversial statements targeting the Muslim community has sparked outrage on social media. However, the motion is currently stuck in the Rajya Sabha as it is pending with Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankar.
