Removal of High Court Judges

(GS Paper II – Polity & Governance: Judiciary | Accountability of Institutions)

Context

The Central Government is preparing to initiate removal proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma (now in the Allahabad High Court), following findings from a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry related to a suspicious fire and large quantities of burnt currency notes found at his Delhi residence.
Based on the CJI-led panel’s recommendation, Parliament will now consider a motion for his removal.

Constitutional & Legal Framework for Judge Removal

Relevant Constitutional Articles

Article	Provision
Article 124(4)	Deals with removal of Supreme Court judges, but extended to High Court judges via Article 217
Article 217(1)(b)	High Court judge can be removed as per the procedure under Article 124(4)

Grounds for Removal (Article 124(4))

“Proved misbehaviour or incapacity”

Statutory Procedure: Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 & Rules, 1969

Steps in the Removal Process

Initiation of Motion
- Needs 100 MPs in Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in Rajya Sabha to submit a motion.
Speaker/Chairperson’s Role
- Admits the motion and constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.
Inquiry Committee Composition (Section 3 of the Act):
- (a) Chief Justice of India or a SC judge
- (b) Chief Justice of a High Court
- (c) A distinguished jurist
Inquiry Timeline
- Submit report within 3 months (can be extended).
Post-Inquiry Steps
- If guilt is proven, the motion is taken up for debate and voting in both Houses.
Final Voting Requirement
- Passed by a special majority:
  - A majority of total membership of the House, and
  - Two-thirds of members present and voting
Presidential Assent
- Once passed in both Houses, the President issues removal order.

Justice Yashwant Varma Case – Key Developments

Incident: Fire at his official residence in Delhi (March 2025); burnt sacks with cash recovered.
In-house Inquiry: Led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, found sufficient evidence for further proceedings.
Recommendation: Referred to President and PM for action under constitutional provisions.
Current Status: Motion to be introduced in Parliament.

Note: In-house inquiry did not indict, but recommended formal motion under the law.

Checks and Balances in Judicial Removal

High threshold ensures judicial independence.
Rare use of removal powers: Only Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) faced motion (failed in LS).
Prevents executive overreach, but ensures judicial accountability in cases of misconduct.

Conclusion

The case of Justice Yashwant Varma reignites debates around the balance between judicial independence and accountability. While the removal process under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is intentionally stringent to prevent political misuse, it also makes the process rare and prolonged. The current proceedings reflect a test of India’s institutional integrity, and underscore the need to strengthen internal mechanisms while preserving constitutional protections.

Mains Questions

GS Paper II: Polity and Governance

Q1. The Constitution provides for removal of judges to ensure judicial accountability, but the process is deliberately rigorous to safeguard independence. Critically examine in the light of recent developments.

Q2. Discuss the safeguards against arbitrary removal of judges in India. Should the process be reformed to address issues of misconduct more swiftly?