CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme Court

While dismissing the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house committee report which indicted him in the unaccounted cash controversy, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister recommending the removal of the Judge.The Court held that the provision (paragraph 7(ii)) in the in-house procedure formulated by the Supreme Court, requiring the CJI to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be "legal and valid.""The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted. It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action. As observed before, it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124. Left to him, the CJI upon being informed of a Judge's remissness does have the authority – moral, ethical and legal – to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear," the Court observed.The Court added that it is not aware if the CJI has indeed recommended the removal of Justice Varma, as the CJI's letter is not in the public domain. However, even if the CJI has made such a recommendataion, there is nothing wrong with that."We say again, we are unaware like the Petitioner of what the CJI remarked while forwarding the REPORT of the COMMITTEE and the Petitioner's response dated 6th May, 2025 to the President and the Prime Minister. However, if indeed, the CJI has reiterated the finding of the Committee as contained in the REPORT and recommended initiation of proceedings for removal of the Petitioner from office, such a recommendation cannot be impeached on any valid and legal ground. Notwithstanding that the recommendation of the CJI carries much weight, one has to realize that the intimation given by the CJI, under the PROCEDURE, is for the eyes of the President and the Prime Minister alone and not anyone else."The Court also upheld the sanctity of the in-house procedure formulated in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).Upholding the in-house procedure, it is observed: "If we were to accept the contention of Mr. Kapil Sibal, the Supreme Court and the CJI would be powerless to initiate any action even on the face of allegations of gross misconduct against a sitting Judge of a High Court which cannot be the legislative intention. To address the growing concern of incidents of misconduct, the PROCEDURE has been craftily designed to discipline Judges internally for such misconduct that is sufficient to tarnish the dignity of his office as well as the institution to which he belongs." In-house procedure fills constitutional gap where misbehaviour does not rise to the level contemplated in Article 124The Court says the only formal ground for removal of a judge is either "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity", but not all misbehaviour of judges would rise to that level. The constitutional gap in such cases is filled by the in-house procedure."Given that the only formal mechanism for addressing judicial misbehaviour under the Constitution is impeachment by Parliament, it must be remembered that not all misbehaviour of Judges necessarily rise to the level of "proved misbehaviour" attracting Articles 217 and 218 read with clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124. The Constitution's silence on cases that do not rise to the level of proven misbehaviour creates a significant structural vulnerability, which has since been addressed by the PROCEDURE. The PROCEDURE acts as a check on judges' unbridled freedom of action and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or unjust."In the writ petition filed by Justice Varma, constitutional issues were also raised regarding the CJI forwarding the in-house committee report and recommendating for the removal of the judge to the President and the Prime Minister if the judge does not resign or seek voluntary retirement. It was argued that because ex-CJI Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded the in-house committee report along with a recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma, this became a basis for the notice of impeachment to be initiated in the House of Parliament.Rejecting these arguments, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih held that the CJI 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. "The recognition that self-imposed ethical norms are integral to the judiciary's credibility, forms the cornerstone of the non-statutory but wholly legal internal procedure for maintaining discipline and, by extension, integrity of the institution. On...

CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

CJI Has Authority To Recommend Removal Of Judge While Forwarding In-House Inquiry Report To President & PM : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers