New Delhi: At a time Justice Yashwant Varma is facing a potential impeachment motion over a cash haul from his official residence, a Rajya Sabha committee is likely to recommend to the Centre to define what counts as “proved misbehavior” and “incapacity”—the two grounds for removing Supreme Court and high court judges.
Chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal, the 31-member Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, which met on 24 June, is expected to hold at least two more rounds of deliberations before finalising its recommendations, according to MPs who attended the previous meeting.
Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, the Parliament can initiate steps to remove a Supreme Court judge “on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity”. The provision is also applicable on high court judges through Article 218 of the Constitution.
According to sources, in their interventions, the members of the Rajya Sabha panel including BJP as well as Opposition MPs, underlined the need to clearly define misbehaviour and incapacity. The justice department secretary was also present in the meeting.
“Members feel that this remains a grey area. While incapacity is largely understood, misbehaviour, unless defined, can have many interpretations. Either Article 124 needs to be amended or there needs to be a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill like the one introduced during the UPA II government that made an attempt in this direction,” said an MP.
Currently, the removal procedure of judges is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, was passed by the Lok Sabha, however, it lapsed after it was never taken up for consideration by the Rajya Sabha.
The bill had listed nine definitions of misbehaviour including “making demands for consideration in cash or kind for giving judgments”, committing an offence involving moral turpitude, wilfully giving false information in the declaration of assets and liabilities. It also laid out judicial standards followed by judges.
It sought to bar judges from “entering into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters which are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination by him”.
A member of the parliamentary panel said that many MPs flagged the need for such a law citing the example of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav who made controversial remarks at an event of the Vishva Hindu Parishad in December 2024.
The UPA I government had given Cabinet nod to Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill which proposed a permanent mechanism to deal with corruption allegations against judges. But it was later shelved.
Currently, the 16-point ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, adopted by the SC in 1997, deals with code of conduct for the judiciary. “The fact that there are flagrant violations of these guidelines was discussed in the meeting,” said the MP.
Sources said some MPs suggested revisiting the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment, which mandated that the sanction of the Chief of Justice of India was needed to register criminal cases against judges of the higher judiciary.
“Some MPs said that if the Supreme Court can set a timeline for the President to clear Bills, the Parliament should also set a timeline for the CJI to take a call on such requests for sanctions on a time-bound manner. It’s been 34 years since that judgment,” said an MP.
On 14 March, wads of currency notes were discovered in a room at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi, while he was serving as a judge at the Delhi High Court.
Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. He has rejected the allegations against him in response to probes undertaken by the Delhi High Court chief justice and a committee set up by the SC.
The committee submitted its report on 3 May, saying that it is “firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations” against Justice Varma and that the misconduct found proved is “serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings” for his removal.
Earlier, ThePrint reported that members of the committee suggested that like in bureaucracy, there should be a cooling-off period of 5 years for judges before they can take up post-retirement jobs.
In its report tabled in the Rajya Sabha 7 February 2024, the Parliamentary committee had stated that it was of the view that the retirement age of judges should be raised and “the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.”
“The committee suggests that the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges may be comprehensively studied again and relooked upon by the Ministry,” it had said in the report.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Justice Varma row: Congress seeks SC-appointed panel’s report to decide its stand on impeachment proposal
