Judges Can't Claim Immunity If Allegations Have Sufficient Substance: SC On Justice Varma's Plea

News18

3 days ago

Justice Varma had also sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a judge cannot claim immunity if allegations are found to have sufficient substance, an observation that would have a far-reaching impact on the judiciary's autonomy.
While dismissing Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of an in-house inquiry report finding him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row, the top court observed a judge cannot claim immunity, citing abrogation of fundamental rights or breach of scheme for his/her removal if allegations are found to have sufficient substance.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said that the Chief Justice of India 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.
'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/recommendations. 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," the bench said.
The Supreme Court also said that the in-house inquiry is not a mechanism for the removal of a judge and no action can be taken merely on the committee's report.
'Nature of inquiry in the instant case is preliminary, ad-hoc and not final as well as not violative of any principle of natural justice… The in-house inquiry or its report forming part of the procedure in itself does not lead to the removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained procedure….We reiterate that a stitch in time saves nine," it remarked.
The top court also noted that the Inquiry Act does not debar the Judge charged with misbehaviour from raising an effective defence by presenting such evidence as is admissible and relevant once the evidence of the witnesses supporting the charge is recorded.
'If any reliance is placed by the committee under the Inquiry Act upon the report of the Committee prepared under the procedure, the Judge charged has a right to be informed, whereupon it shall be open to him to raise such points as to non-reliability/non-acceptability thereof as are available in law," it said.
What Justice Varma Said?
In his petition, Justice Varma submitted that the inquiry 'reversed the burden of proof", requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him. Alleging that the panel's findings were based on a preconceived narrative, he said the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of 'procedural fairness". The petition contended that the inquiry panel drew adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing.
view comments
First Published:
August 07, 2025, 18:31 IST
News india Judges Can't Claim Immunity If Allegations Have Sufficient Substance: SC On Justice Varma's Plea
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.