Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has forwarded the report of an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma to the President of India and the Prime Minister. This step is significant and directly aligns with the established in-house procedure for handling allegations against judges. Here’s a detailed look at the process and what this means.

The in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma was conducted by a three-judge panel. Although the findings of the report are not publicly disclosed, the fact that the CJI has sent it to the President and Prime Minister indicates that the panel found substance in the allegations against Justice Varma. As per the procedure:

Also Read - Supreme Court Refuses Third Party’s Plea for Former CJI UU Lalit’s Report in West Bengal VC Appointment Case

• If the three-judge panel finds the allegations to be true, it submits its report to the CJI.
• The CJI, after reviewing the report, may advise the concerned judge to either resign or seek voluntary retirement.
• If the judge refuses, the CJI can withdraw judicial work from the judge and send the report to the President and Prime Minister for further action.

“The role of the CJI ends when he writes to the President and the Prime Minister recommending the removal of a judge.”

The in-house procedure followed in this case is based on the guidelines established in several landmark cases, including:

• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
• Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995)
• Additional District And Sessions v Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya (2015)

Also Read -Supreme Court Directs States to Identify and Remove Discriminatory Laws Against Leprosy-Affected Persons

The process begins when a complaint is received by the CJI. If the complaint is found to be serious, the CJI can form a committee comprising three judges to investigate. This committee can either dismiss the complaint as baseless or confirm the allegations, which may lead to the judge's resignation, voluntary retirement, or removal.

In this case, the three-judge committee included:

• Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court.
• Justice GS Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court.
• Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of Karnataka High Court.

These judges reviewed the allegations against Justice Varma and found them substantial enough to be reported to the CJI. This led to the CJI’s decision to send the report to the President and Prime Minister.

If the misconduct is severe and warrants removal, the CJI can advise the judge to resign or retire. If the judge refuses, the CJI can restrict their judicial work and forward the report to the President and Prime Minister. This has now been done in the case of Justice Varma.

Also Read -WB School Jobs Scam: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Decide on Sanction for Prosecution of Partha Chatterjee’s Co-Accused

“If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI must report the matter to the President and the Prime Minister, ensuring that the judicial work of the judge is withdrawn.”

The in-house procedure has been used before in similar cases:

• Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court): Accused of financial misconduct, refused to resign, leading to a recommendation for his removal.
• Justice Narayan Shukla (Allahabad High Court): Inquiry report submitted by CJI Dipak Misra to the President, but no impeachment followed.

The process reflects a balanced approach, ensuring judicial accountability without compromising judicial independence.