The Impeachment of Judges in India: Lessons from Justice Yashwant Varma's Case
The impeachment motion which is recently initiated against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court in July 2025 has brought the focus back on the rarely used but constitutionally powerful mechanism of removing judges in India. In this blog I will take you deep into the legal, historical, and constitutional framework of judicial impeachment, with comparative insights from global democracies and an in-depth explanation of how judges are appointed in India.
The Justice Yashwant Varma Controversy: What Happened?
In March 2025, Justice Yashwant Varma came into light when a fire broke out at his residence. When the fire was doused, authorities discovered sacks of partially burnt cash, raising suspicions of corruption and misconduct. The Chief Justice of India constituted an in-house committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which found sufficient evidence of gross misconduct. Based on this, over 100 Lok Sabha MPs and 50+ Rajya Sabha MPs submitted an impeachment notice.
Justice Varma has since challenged the inquiry report in the Supreme Court, alleging procedural lapses and violation of natural justice.
The Origin of Impeachment in India: Borrowed but Indianized
The process of impeachment in India was inspired by the United States Constitution, where Article II, Section 4 allows for the impeachment of the President, Vice President, and civil officers (including judges) for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
However, India adopted a more stringent and cautious version. Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution lays down a very high threshold for removing a judge: “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operationalizes this framework.
This caution stems from the Constituent Assembly's intent to protect judicial independence, which is seen as a cornerstone of India's democratic and constitutional structure.
The Constitutional Provisions
- Article 124(4): Provides for removal of Supreme Court judges.
- Article 124(5): Empowers Parliament to enact laws regulating the removal process.
- Article 217 read with Article 218: Applies to High Court judges.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Statutory framework for inquiry and impeachment.
Global Comparisons
| Country | Who Can Be Removed | Process | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Federal Judges | House impeachment + 2/3 Senate vote | 15 judges impeached so far |
| UK | Senior Judges | Address to Crown by Parliament | Used only in rare cases |
| India | SC & HC Judges | Inquiry Committee + 2/3 vote in both Houses | No judge removed yet |
India's system is unique in requiring both judicial inquiry and political consensus.
Judicial Appointments: The Other Side of Accountability
Before understanding impeachment, it’s critical to understand how judges are appointed. Accountability starts with transparency in appointments.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 124(2): SC judges appointed by the President after consultation with CJI.
- Article 217(1): HC judges appointed by the President after consultation with CJI, Governor, and Chief Justice of the concerned HC.
The Evolution of the Collegium System
India originally followed an executive-dominated system. But three key SC judgments altered this:
- First Judges Case (1981): Executive primacy upheld.
- Second Judges Case (1993): Introduced Collegium system.
- Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded Collegium to 5 SC judges for SC appointments.
The Collegium is now the de facto authority for appointments and transfers of judges, aiming to preserve independence but often criticized for lack of transparency.
The NJAC Episode
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), enacted in 2014, sought to replace the Collegium. However, it was struck down in 2015 by the SC in a 4:1 majority citing violation of judicial independence (Article 50).
Detailed Impeachment Process in India
- Initiation: Motion signed by at least 100 LS MPs or 50 RS MPs.
- Admittance: Speaker/Chairman admits motion; discretionary.
- Inquiry Committee: Consists of:
- A sitting SC judge
- A Chief Justice of an HC
- A jurist nominated by the Speaker/Chairman
- Report: If guilty, motion proceeds; else dropped.
- Parliamentary Vote:
- Both Houses must pass the motion
- Requires “majority of total membership AND 2/3rd of members present and voting"
- President's Order: Judge removed by the President.
Notable Cases of Impeachment
- Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Proven guilty; motion failed due to Congress abstaining.
- Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): RS passed motion; resigned before LS could act.
- Justice P.D. Dinakaran: Resigned before proceedings could begin.
- Justice Yashwant Varma (2025): Motion in progress – significant as it may become the first successful impeachment.
Why Impeachment Is Rare
- High bar of proof
- Political consensus required
- Judiciary seen as a co-equal organ; removal can signal imbalance
But the Varma case reminds us that judicial integrity is not above scrutiny, and accountability must coexist with independence.
Final Thoughts for UPSC Aspirants
- Understand impeachment as a constitutional safety valve.
- Be familiar with both appointment and removal mechanisms.
- Use examples like Varma, Sen, and Ramaswami in essays and GS answers.
- Reflect on the balance between independence and accountability in a democracy.
Have any queries, suggestions drop a comment below. And follow this blog for more such UPSC related content.
Comments
Post a Comment