JUSTICE VARMA IMPEACHMENT from Vajirao & Reddy Institute

JUSTICE VARMA IMPEACHMENT

• In June 2025, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju announced the government’s plan to seek support from all political parties for an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma.
• Justice Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court, is accused of corruption.
• The corruption charges were upheld by a Supreme Court-appointed committee.
• The government intends the impeachment process to be bipartisan and non-political.
• The goal is to initiate the impeachment motion during the Monsoon Session of Parliament (July 21 to August 12, 2025).

• Who: Justice Yashwant Varma, formerly at Delhi High Court, currently Allahabad High Court.
• Why: Found guilty of corruption through an independent SC-appointed inquiry committee.
• Government Stance:
  • Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju emphasized that corruption in the judiciary transcends political divisions.
  • Calls for a united parliamentary approach.
  • Engaged in talks with major and smaller political parties to secure consensus.
• Significance: A rare and serious step reinforcing the message that judiciary integrity is paramount.

• A motion to remove a judge can be introduced in either House of Parliament.
• Requires support of at least:
  • 100 Lok Sabha members or
  • 50 Rajya Sabha
• The Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) decides whether to admit the motion based on preliminary scrutiny.

• Upon admission of motion, a three-member committee is formed by the Speaker/Chairman to investigate allegations.
• The committee consists of:
  • Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge,
  • Chief Justice of one of the High Courts,
  • A distinguished jurist (a reputed legal expert).
• The committee investigates charges, records evidence, and examines witnesses.

• The committee submits its findings to the presiding officer.
• If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion for removal is debated in both Houses.
• The motion requires a special majority for approval:
  • Majority of total membership of the House, and
  • At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.

• Once both Houses pass the impeachment motion, it is presented to the President.
• The President orders removal of the judge accordingly.

• An in-house committee (internal SC inquiry led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna) had already investigated Justice Varma and submitted a report.
• This differs from usual cases where the parliamentary committee investigates from scratch.
• The government is deliberating how to incorporate this existing report into the formal impeachment inquiry.
• The Speaker of Lok Sabha will decide the procedural aspects.
• Minister Rijiju called the reconciliation of reports a secondary issue compared to the goal of moving the motion swiftly.
• The government aims to complete the impeachment process during the upcoming Monsoon Session.

• In March 2025, a fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi revealed burnt sacks containing cash in an outhouse.
• Justice Varma denied knowledge of the cash.
• A Supreme Court-appointed committee conducted an inquiry, recording witness statements and Justice Varma’s responses.
• The committee found Justice Varma guilty of corruption.
• CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly asked Justice Varma to resign, but he refused.
• Consequently, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court but has not been assigned any judicial duties there.
• CJI Khanna also wrote to the President and Prime Minister recommending impeachment, the constitutional mechanism for removing High Court judges.

• Article 124(4) of the Constitution: Applies to removal of Supreme Court judges.
• Article 218: Extends same procedure to High Court judges.
• Grounds for removal are restricted to:
  • Proved misbehaviour, or
  • Incapacity (physical or mental inability to perform judicial duties).

• Ensures judicial accountability while maintaining judicial independence.
• Acts as a check against misconduct without allowing frivolous or politically motivated removals.

• High thresholds for motion admission and voting prevent misuse.
• Expert inquiry committee ensures fairness and objectivity.
• Bicameral parliamentary involvement strengthens democratic scrutiny.
• Ensures removal only in serious proven cases.

• Judges have freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) but with restrictions to:
  • Preserve judicial dignity,
  • Avoid bias or partiality,
  • Maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
• Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997):
  • Stress impartiality, integrity, propriety, and independence.
• Judges must avoid:
  • Public comments on ongoing cases,
  • Political or partisan statements,
  • Participation in controversial forums/events.
• The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of judges who violate these norms (e.g., Justice C.S. Karnan case).