Cash discovery row: Will Justice Yashwant Varma face impeachment?

On March 22, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna appointed a three-member in-house panel to investigate the matter. The panel comprised 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.

On May 3, the three-member SC-appointed panel submitted a report of its findings where it had found credence in the allegations of discovery of wads of cash at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. The panel had recorded the statements of a number of witnesses in the course of its inquiry. The report has not been made public yet.

On May 9, then CJI Khanna forwarded a copy of the inquiry report to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The inquiry report was sent to the President and PM along with a recommendation stating that impeachment proceedings may be initiated against the judge.

On March 20, the Supreme Court informed that Justice Varma had been transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On April 5, Justice Varma took oath as a judge of the Allahabad HC but has not been assigned work. He is reported to have been asked to resign, but refused to do so.

Judge's Impeachment: What the Constitution says

The process of removal of a judge of the Supreme Court of the High Court (in Justice Varma's case) is dealt with in detail in the Constitution and The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Article 124 (4) states: "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity."

Article 218 applies the same provisions for the removal of a judge of the High Court.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: A 10-step process

While the Constitution empowers the Parliament to decide how the process of impeachment will be followed, The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, regulates the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court to enable his or her impeachment.

1. The procedure can be initiated in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. For an impeachment motion to be taken up, at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs, or at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, have to sign a notice for a motion to remove a judge, and present it before the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairperson.

2. The Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairperson are then required to decide whether or not to admit the motion.

3. Once the motion is admitted, the Lok Sabha Speaker or Rajya Sabha Chairperson need to constitute a committee to look into the allegations against the judge. The committee must include one Supreme Court judge, one Chief Justice of a High Court and one distinguished jurist.

4. In case such a motion is moved in both Houses of Parliament on the same day, a committee can only be formed if both these motions are accepted. The Speaker and the Chairperson will then have to jointly decide on the make-up of the committee, in both houses, respectively.

5. The Committee then decides the framing of charges against the judge.

6. The charges framed then have to be sent to the judge seeking his or her written response.

7. The committee will then present its report along with the written response of the judge to the Parliament, which will then be laid on the House by the Speaker or Chairperson. If the report finds misbehaviour or incapacity, the House will debate and vote on it.

8. Before the vote on the impeachment motion, the judge can present his or her defence on the floor of the House.

9. The passage of the impeachment motion requires a "special majority" in both Houses of Parliament, meaning it will require the support of more than half the total membership of the House, and at least two-thirds of the members who are present and voting.

10. The motion is then sent to the President of India, who will give the order for removal.

Has a judge ever been impeached by Parliament?

While the Constitution and The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, lay down the grounds and the process to be followed for impeachment, no judge has been removed by the President in the history of India. However, several judges have either faced an in-house inquiry, or impeachment process in Parliament for removal, or both.

Justice V Ramaswami, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 1993

Justice V Ramaswami, the then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was the first judge to face impeachment proceedings in independent India. He was reportedly alleged to have spent exorbitantly on his official residence as the Chief Justice of the HC. The motion to remove him was moved in Lok Sabha by BJP and other parties, and the Speaker-appointed committee found him guilty of 11 out of 14 charges. However, all Congress MPs abstained from voting when the motion was put to vote and the motion failed.

Justice Soumitra Sen, Calcutta High Court, 2011

Calcutta High Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen faced in-house proceedings set up by the then CJI KG Balakrishnan in 2007. Accused of misappropriation of funds, he refused to resign despite being found guilty. The CJI then recommended his impeachment to the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2008. In 2009, an impeachment motion was moved against Justice Sen in the Rajya Sabha and was passed. However, Justice Sumitra Sen resigned just before the motion was taken up for voting in the Lok Sabha.

Justice PD Dinakaran, Sikkim High Court, 2011

Justice PD Dinakaran faced allegations of corruption when he was being considered for elevation as a Supreme Court judge in 2009. In 2011, a motion for his impeachment was brought in the Rajya Sabha. The then RS Chairman Hamid Ansari appointed a three-member committee to investigate the allegations. The committee consisted of Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice JS Khehar, and senior advocate PP Rao. Justice Dinakaran objected to the presence of PP Rao in the committee, citing personal bias, and went to the Supreme Court. A bench headed by Justice GS Singhvi agreed to remove Rao from the committee, but did not agree to quash the charges framed against Dinakaran by them. Justice Dinakaran resigned, claiming that a fair process was not followed because he was Dalit.

Justice JB Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court, 2015

Justice JB Pardiwala faced impeachment proceedings in the Rajya Sabha for alleged casteist remarks over a comment while hearing a sedition case that "reservation has stalled the progress of the country". The judge then expunged the remarks for his judgement, and the motion was never taken forward.

Justice SK Gangele, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2015

Justice SK Gangele of the MP High Court faced allegations of sexual harassment by a woman employee of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. The CJI constituted an in-house committee to look into the case, and the committee said the material they had was insufficient to prove a charge of sexual harassment. By then, a motion had been moved in the Rajya Sabha for impeachment of the judge. However, the committee formed by the Chairman to look into the allegations concluded that there was no sexual harassment.

Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court, 2016 and 2017

Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy faced two motions for removal of the judge in the Rajya Sabha -- once in 2016 and in 2017 -- over accusations of victimising a Dalit lower court judge, being casteist, and amassing wealth. However both motions did not move forward as several MPs who initially supported the motions later withdrew, bringing the number of signatories below the required count of 50 MPs.

Justice Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India, 2018

Opposition MPs moved an impeachment motion in Rajya Sabha against the then CJI Dipak Misra following an unprecedented press conference by four sitting judged of the Supreme Court in January 2018. The judges accused the then CJI of arbitrarily assigning cases to various judges, and showing preferential treatment to some judges. The motion was moved in the Rajya Sabha much later in 2018. However, Venkaiah Naidu, the then Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, refused to accept the motion claiming that the allegations were about internal administration and not misbehaviour.

Justice SN Shukla, Allahabad High Court, 2018

Justice SN Shukla faced an in-house procedure and was asked to resign by the then CJI Dipak Misra in 2018 over accusations of involvement in a medical college admission scam. However, the judge refused to do so, prompting the CJI to notify the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice not to assign any cases to him. The then CJI also recommended his impeachment to the Prime Minister but the government did not take it up in Parliament. The judge neither resigned nor heard any cases until his retirement in 2020. In 2023, the CBI filed a corruption case against him.