CJI forms three-member committee for deeper probe against Justice Varma
A fire at a sitting High Court judge's official residence in New Delhi led to the discovery of burnt and partially burnt currency notes in a storeroom.
The Chief Justice of India constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee — comprising two High Court Chief Justices and one High Court judge — to conduct a deeper, confidential probe into the allegations.
The judge concerned was directed not to be assigned any judicial work pending the outcome of the inquiry.
The in-house committee subsequently examined the incident, recorded evidence, and submitted a report on its findings to the Chief Justice of India.
The In-House Procedure for Judicial Accountability
The "in-house procedure" is an informal, judiciary-evolved mechanism to address complaints of misconduct against sitting judges that fall short of the constitutional threshold of "proved misbehaviour" required for removal. It fills the gap between judicial impropriety and formal, Parliament-driven removal — allowing the judiciary to take confidential, corrective, or fact-finding action internally.
Key Details
- Traces its origin to the Supreme Court's ruling in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995), which held that in-house institutional mechanisms could act against a judge whose conduct was blameworthy but did not amount to "proved misbehaviour."
- A five-judge committee (three Supreme Court judges and two senior High Court Chief Justices) drafted the detailed procedure; the report was submitted in 1997 and adopted, with amendments, by a Full Court resolution in December 1999.
- Under the procedure, the Chief Justice of India can first conduct a preliminary inquiry, and if warranted, constitute a three-member committee (typically sitting judges/Chief Justices) to investigate the allegation and report back confidentially.
- The committee's report is not binding on Parliament, but if it finds the allegations serious enough to warrant removal, the CJI can ask the judge to resign, or, failing that, forward the report to the President and Prime Minister to trigger the formal constitutional removal process.
The three-member committee formed here is a textbook application of the 1999 in-house procedure — a judiciary-led, confidential fact-finding exercise that precedes (and can trigger) the formal parliamentary removal machinery under the Constitution.
Article 124(4)/218 — The Only Constitutional Route to Remove a Judge
Article 124(4) (for Supreme Court judges, extended to High Court judges via Article 218) is the sole constitutional mechanism for removing a sitting judge. A judge can be removed only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity," through a motion passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament in the same session, followed by a removal order from the President.
Key Details
- The special majority required is a majority of the total membership of the House and not less than two-thirds of members present and voting.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operationalises this article — a parliamentary motion must first be admitted, after which a separate three-member inquiry committee (distinct from the judiciary's own in-house committee) investigates the charges.
- No sitting judge in independent India has ever been removed through this process to completion — attempts against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993, Lok Sabha) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011, who resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed the motion but before the Lok Sabha could vote) illustrate how rare and difficult formal removal has been.
The in-house committee's finding is a preliminary, non-binding step; only a subsequent parliamentary inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, followed by a special-majority vote in both Houses, can actually remove the judge from office.
Article 222 — Transfer of High Court Judges
Article 222 empowers the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, to transfer a judge from one High Court to another. This power, distinct from removal, has been used administratively in judicial accountability episodes even while a misconduct inquiry is pending.
Key Details
- Transfer decisions are made on the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium (per the Second and Third Judges Cases, 1993 and 1998, which built the collegium system for appointments and transfers).
- Directing that no judicial work be assigned to a judge under a cloud is an administrative step taken by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court or the CJI, separate from both the in-house inquiry and any eventual transfer.
- Withdrawal of judicial work and transfer are both interim, administrative responses; neither amounts to a finding of guilt or a punishment under the Constitution.
The direction that the judge not be assigned judicial work, alongside the in-house probe, shows the layered administrative and inquiry-based tools the judiciary uses to respond to serious allegations before any constitutional removal process begins.
- Grounds for removal of a judge under Article 124(4)/218: "proved misbehaviour or incapacity"
- Special majority for a removal motion: total membership majority + two-thirds of members present and voting, in both Houses, same session
- In-house procedure origin: C. Ravichandran Iyer case (1995) → five-judge committee report (1997) → adopted by Full Court resolution (December 1999)
- Number of judges removed to completion under Article 124(4)/218 in independent India: zero
- Judges (Inquiry) Act enacted: 1968