Latest news with #JudgesInquiryAct
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Judge removal involves several steps. Here's how it proceeds
Judge removal involves several steps. Here's how it proceeds Once a judicial inquiry committee concludes in its report about wrongdoing by a constitutional court judge, the CJI, on being satisfied with the committee's finding, offers an opportunity to the judge concerned to resign. If the judge refuses, then the CJI forwards the inquiry report to the President, who is the appointing authority, and the PM. The PM and the Union Cabinet, after discussing the report, may ask the law ministry/parliamentary affairs ministry to initiate a motion for removal. A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it. Once the motion is placed before the LS Speaker or RS chairman, in either case, he carries out a preliminary review of the report as well as the accompanying motion and has the power to 'admit or refuse to admit' the notice of motion for removal (Section 3 of Judges Inquiry Act, 1968). In the event of admitting the notice of motion for removal, the head of the House concerned will keep the motion pending and constitute a three-member committee for 'the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for'. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The committee will comprise either the CJI or a judge of the SC, an HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist. The committee will then frame charges against the judge concerned. '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 provides. Section 4 of the Act provides, 'The committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure in making the investigation and shall give a reasonable opportunity to the judge of cross-examining witnesses, adducing evidence and of being heard in his defence.' The committee, after conclusion of the investigation, will present a report to the head of the House concerned where the motion for removal is pending. If the report finds the judge 'not guilty', then no further steps will be taken, and the motion will be treated as infructuous. If the report finds the judge guilty, then the head of the House will lay the report before the House as soon as possible and the House will take up the motion for removal for debate. The motion will then have to be passed by each House, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of the House present and voting. It will then be presented to the President for removal of the judge. A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it
Arabian Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Impeachment Rarely Works As An Effective Deterrent Against Judicial Misconduct
By K Raveendran The impeachment of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the wake of burnt notes being discovered from his residence appears to be a certainty. However, going by past experience, impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent against judicial misconduct in India. In the history of Indian judiciary, only five formal impeachment and removal proceedings have ever been initiated against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This, however, by no means suggests that the judiciary is largely free of corruption or misconduct; rather it reveals how impeachment has functioned more as a symbolic tool than as an effective deterrent against judicial impropriety. The process of impeachment is exceptionally rigorous. It requires not just a special majority in each House of Parliament but also an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, if the motion is admitted. The special majority, as defined, demands a majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of those present and voting. Such a high threshold ensures that only the most egregious instances of judicial misconduct might proceed to actual removal, thereby protecting judges from political vendetta. However, this also severely limits the practical utility of impeachment as a deterrent mechanism. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 was the first significant test of the impeachment provisions. Accused of financial and administrative irregularities during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an inquiry committee found him guilty. However, despite the damning report, the motion to impeach him failed in the Lok Sabha because the ruling Congress party abstained from voting, thereby denying the motion the required two-thirds majority. The episode starkly exposed the political vulnerabilities of the impeachment process. The failure to act decisively, even when guilt was established, sent a troubling signal: that the fate of judges accused of misconduct could be determined not by the strength of evidence but by partisan political considerations. Justice Soumitra Sen's case in 2011 provides a contrast. Accused of misappropriation of funds while acting as a court-appointed receiver before his elevation to the bench, he became the first judge to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha. However, before the House could take up the motion, Sen resigned. His resignation effectively halted the process, as impeachment can only be carried out against sitting judges. While some may view his resignation as an admission of guilt and an appropriate end, it also underscores a structural loophole — a judge can preempt removal by stepping down, avoiding formal accountability and preserving post-retirement privileges. This again undercuts impeachment's value as a true deterrent. Another illustrative case is that of Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who faced serious allegations of corruption, land-grab, and abuse of office. A judicial panel was constituted to investigate, but Dinakaran chose to resign in 2011 before the impeachment motion could be moved. Much like Sen's case, this resignation allowed Dinakaran to avoid the ignominy of removal while simultaneously frustrating any opportunity to establish institutional accountability through due process. In effect, resignation becomes an escape hatch for judges under scrutiny, preventing the larger objective of upholding judicial integrity from being fulfilled. The pattern of impeachment motions reveals a mix of serious misconduct, political motivations, and procedural stalemates. In 2015, Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court faced an impeachment notice due to controversial remarks on reservation policies. Though the motion gained the support of 58 Rajya Sabha members, it did not progress further, partly because the remarks were later expunged. This case raises questions about the threshold for initiating impeachment and whether judicial opinions — controversial as they may be — should form the basis for such an extreme remedy. The danger here is that impeachment could be weaponized to target ideological or jurisprudential differences rather than clear cases of misconduct, which could erode judicial independence. The same year, another motion was initiated against Justice S.K. Gangele, who faced allegations of sexual harassment by a former judge. A committee of inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act found insufficient evidence to support the charges, and the motion was dropped. While the inquiry's outcome upheld procedural fairness, the case brought to light the difficulty in substantiating serious but often hard-to-prove allegations against sitting judges. Moreover, the high evidentiary bar combined with a stringent majority requirement in Parliament effectively discourages the initiation of impeachment even in cases that might warrant closer scrutiny. In 2017, an impeachment motion was moved against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. Accusations of abuse of power and casteist threats were levelled against him, and opposition MPs submitted a motion to the Rajya Sabha. Despite this, the matter did not progress to the final stages, again reflecting either a political reluctance or the cumbersome nature of the process. While the procedural safeguards are meant to protect judges from frivolous attacks, they simultaneously dilute the threat of consequences, particularly when the accused judge is strategically placed or politically shielded. Perhaps the most politically sensitive instance occurred in 2018, when opposition parties attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Allegations ranged from impropriety in the allocation of cases to more general concerns over judicial functioning. While the motion was eventually rejected by the Vice President on grounds of insufficient merit, the episode reflected a broader sense of judicial crisis and institutional mistrust. Regardless of the specific merits, the mere fact that impeachment was contemplated against a sitting Chief Justice indicates how impeachment can also serve as a tool for political signalling rather than a strictly legal recourse. Overall, these examples reveal that impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent. The excessively high procedural thresholds, the option for resignation, and the overlap with partisan politics render the process merely symbolic. For impeachment to be a credible deterrent, it must be both operationally viable and procedurally sound — characteristics it currently lacks. Most motions either fail to gain momentum, are defeated due to political manoeuvring, or are short-circuited by resignations. Consequently, judges facing serious allegations often continue without facing institutional consequences, weakening public trust in the judiciary's accountability mechanisms. (IPA Service)
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Will Justice Yashwant Varma Be 1st Judge To Get Impeached? Centre Weighing Options
Last Updated: Centre is considering bringing an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash at residence case. Following his indictment by the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry panel, the central government is considering bringing an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash at residence case during the upcoming monsoon session. Earlier this month, a three-member committee set up by the Supreme Court confirmed the presence of cash found at Justice Varma's residence in New Delhi after a fire broke out there around Holi on March 14. The Parliament is contemplating the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma under the constitutional and judicial inquiry framework. Notably, the motion, if initiated, would set off a rare and highly structured removal process as outlined in the Constitution of India and the Judges Inquiry Act. According to Article 217, along with Article 124(4), a High Court judge can only be removed by the President after both houses of Parliament pass a motion with a special majority, based on proven misbehavior or incapacity. It is learnt that the President has now referred the former CJI's recommendation to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha Speaker. Reportedly, former CJI Sanjiv Khanna's report recommended impeachment and therefore, the motion has to be brought in Parliament. Procedure Under Judges Inquiry Act For an impeachment motion against a judge to be passed, at least two-thirds of those present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of the motion. The number of votes in favour must be more than 50 per cent of the total membership of each House. And if the Parliament passes the vote, the President will then pass an order for the removal of the judge. Notably, no High Court judge has ever been removed through impeachment in Indian history, making this potential move unprecedented. First Published: May 28, 2025, 14:10 IST
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Cash at residence: Govt likely to bring impeachment motion against Justice Varma
FOLLOWING his indictment by the Supreme Court in-house inquiry panel, the government is likely to bring an impeachment motion in the upcoming monsoon session against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, The Indian Express has learnt. On May 3, a three-member panel, set up by the Supreme Court, had found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at the judge's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. Appointed by the CJI on March 22, the panel, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka; recorded the statements of a range of witnesses. The Indian Express had reported on May 9 that then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, along with a recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge to President Draupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Justice Varma was also asked to resign but he is learnt to have refused to do so. He was transferred out on March 20 and he took oath as judge at the Allahabad High Court on April 5 but he has not been assigned work. It is learnt that the President has now referred the former CJI's recommendation to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha Speaker. Top sources in the government said that since the former CJI's report recommended impeachment, the motion has to be brought in the Parliament. For a motion of impeachment to be taken up, it has to be moved by not less than 100 members in the Lower House, and at least 50 members in the Upper House. 'We will bring the motion in the upcoming session. We will ask both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker to take the sense of the House,' said a source, adding that the government will seek consensus from Opposition parties since the final step of impeachment has to be cleared by a two-third majority in both the Houses. Both Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar and Speaker Om Birla are likely to reach out to Opposition leaders for evolving a consensus. 'This exercise will begin soon,' said a source. Sources in the Congress said that the party had not yet been approached for a discussion on the matter. The Monsoon session of Parliament is expected to begin by the third week of July. The Constitution states that a judge of a constitutional court can only be removed on two grounds: proved misbehaviour' and 'incapacity.' The procedure to be followed for removal is laid down in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Once a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker/ Chairman has to constitute a three-member committee of inquiry. The committee is headed by the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and has a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against an SC or HC judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge — and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President will pass an order for the removal of the judge. On May 26, the Supreme Court administration had rejected a plea seeking the panel's report on Justice Varma of the committee under the Right to Information Act.
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
CJI Sanjiv Khanna urges Centre to initiate steps to oust Justice Yashwant Varma
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna NEW DELHI: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is understood to have recommended to the Centre to initiate a motion in Parliament for removal of Allahabad high court 's Justice Yashwant Varma , who refused to resign despite a judicial inquiry corroborating discovery of huge amount of cash at his official residence in Delhi on March 14. The SC officially said on Thursday that the CJI, in line with the in-house procedure, has written to President Droupadi Murmu and PM Modi "enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Varma". Operation Sindoor Operation Sindoor: Several airports in India closed - check full list Did Pak shoot down Indian jets? What MEA said India foils Pakistan's attack on Jammu airport: What we know so far Under the in-house procedure, if an inquiry report indicts the judge for corruption or misdemeanour, the CJI would ask the judge concerned to either resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge refuses, the CJI is to write to the President and the PM to initiate removal proceedings under the Judges Inquiry Act . On the recommendation of the CJI, the govt will have to initiate a motion for removal of Justice Varma in either Lok Sabha (minimum 150 MPs to sign) or Rajya Sabha (50 MPs to sign). It would then be open for the LS speaker or the RS chairman to decide whether the motion is to be admitted. Once the motion is admitted, the speaker or chairman would constitute a three-member committee comprising an SC judge and an HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist. The committee will frame charges against the judge for investigation and the judge concerned will have an opportunity to refute the evidence. Justice Varma has been without judicial work since March 2 After a formal trial, the committee will give a report to the House concerned, which, if it finds the judge guilty, will debate the matter in the two Houses. The judge can be removed only after each House with two-thirds of members present and voting support the motion. Earlier, Parliament had debated removal motions against SC judge V Ramaswami, which fell through in Lok Sabha in 1991, and Calcutta HC's Justice Soumitra Sen, who resigned midway through the debate in Parliament. In its May 3 report, the inquiry panel comprising Punjab and Haryana HC Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh CJ G S Sandhawalia and Karnataka HC's Justice Anu Sivaraman corroborated the finding that a huge amount of cash was found at Justice Varma's residence by first responders to a fire incident at his official Tughlaq Crescent bungalow in Delhi. The inquiry panel had also detailed the mysterious disappearance of bundles of cash that had not caught fire on the night of March 14-15 after the first responders and police left the scene. The CJI had sent the adverse report to Justice Varma seeking his response. The CJI had also suggested to Justice Varma to tender his resignation given the virtual indictment by the informal inquiry panel constituted by the CJI on March 22. His refusal to do so and readiness to prove his innocence before a formal inquiry committee, which will be set up following admission of a motion in either House of Parliament, forced the CJI's hand to write to the President and the PM. Justice Varma has been without judicial work since March 20. He was repatriated to Allahabad HC later in the month and the CJ concerned was advised not to assign him any judicial work. He will continue to be without judicial work till the formal inquiry, set up after admission of the motion for his removal in one of the Houses in Parliament, is completed and Parliament debates it.
