How is an in-house inquiry conducted? | Explained

Supreme Court in-house committee probes allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, highlighting need for judicial accountability and transparency.

The story so far:

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has constituted an in-house committee to conduct an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Justice Yashwant Varma. This follows recovery of huge piles of cash at his residence during a fire-control operation.

A fire broke out at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court on March 14. The fire-control personnel discovered huge piles of cash that was burnt in the fire inside the storeroom. The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court conducted the preliminary inquiry and reported to the CJI that his prima facie opinion is for a deeper probe into the entire matter. As per the direction of the CJI, responses were sought from Justice Yashwant Varma on the preliminary inquiry findings. Justice Varma responded that no cash was ever placed by him or his family members in the storeroom, and that they were never shown the sacks of burnt currency notes during the fire-control operation. A three-member committee has been constituted as per the in-house procedure of the Supreme Court for conducting an inquiry into the allegations. Meanwhile, judicial work has been withdrawn from Justice Varma and he has been transferred to his parent Allahabad High Court by the collegium.

In order to probe into complaints of alleged misbehaviour against judges of the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court has developed an in-house procedure of inquiry. The resolution for in-house procedures for action against judges was adopted in 1999 and made public in 2014.

When a complaint is received against a judge of a High Court, the CJI will decide whether the issue is frivolous or warrants an inquiry. If an inquiry is deemed necessary, the judge’s initial response along with comments of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court are taken on record. The CJI can them form a three-member committee consisting of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge. The committee after the inquiry can provide a recommendation that the misconduct is serious enough to warrant removal or not serious enough. If the recommendation is not for removal, the judge would be apprised accordingly. However, if the recommendation is for the judge’s removal, he/she will be asked to resign. In the event of the judge unwilling to resign, the President and the Prime Minister will be informed of the findings for Parliament to initiate action for removal as per provisions of the Constitution. Any complaint against the Chief Justice of a High Court, would be inquired by a committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices of other High Courts. In case of a complaint against a Supreme Court judge, the committee would consist of three Supreme Court Judges. In the instant case, based on the preliminary opinion of the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, the CJI has constituted a committee consisting of the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana Court, the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, and a judge of the Karnataka High Court to inquire into the allegations.

The details of in-house inquiries are kept confidential by the Supreme Court. This practice may be changed to disclose the key findings of the inquiry to instil transparency and confidence in the whole process. Furthermore, in the past, no judge has suffered criminal punishment even after having been found guilty of misbehaviour by the inquiry committee. This needs to be addressed and the guilty should be brought to book. In the U.K., there is an autonomous statutory office called the ‘Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’ that investigates allegations of judicial misconduct. A similar autonomous and permanent body may be established in India under the CJI.

One of the root causes for the problem probably lies in the opaqueness of the collegium process that is followed for the appointment of judges. There needs to be a renewed debate on operationalising the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as unconstitutional for violating the basic structure of the independence of judiciary. The collegium process has no doubt ensured independence of the judiciary in appointments. However, it does suffer from lack of accountability and transparency. A broad-based NJAC headed by the CJI with representatives from various stakeholders including members of the legislature, lawyer associations and academia may be set up on the lines of the Judicial Service Commission in South Africa. The CJI and other senior judges may be provided with a veto to have the final say in the appointment process. Such a set up would make the selection process more transparent and inclusive without compromising the independence of the judiciary.