According to reports, Justice Varma was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or have legal representation — two fundamental rights in any fair process. These omissions strike at the heart of natural justice, the very principle the judiciary enforces in every courtroom across the country.
Published Jun 23, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 23, 2025 | 8:00 AM
Justice Yashwant Varma.
Synopsis: A fire at the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma revealed unaccounted cash, triggering a chain of events that could lead to his impeachment — a rare and grave step in India’s judicial history. However, the speed and decisiveness of the in-house inquiry have raised serious concerns.
India’s judiciary, a cornerstone of our democracy, stands at a critical moment. The Constitution, which guides our nation with its principles of justice and fairness, is being tested.
Justice Yashwant Varma, once a respected high court judge known for his wisdom, is now under intense scrutiny. A fire at his official residence revealed unaccounted cash, triggering a chain of events that could lead to his impeachment — a rare and grave step in India’s judicial history.
However, as this process unfolds, a deeper question emerges: Can the system that judges a judge uphold the same fairness it demands from others? This case is not just about one man; it is about the trust we place in our judiciary and the principles that define justice itself.
The idea that justice must not only be done but must clearly be seen to be done is a bedrock of our legal system. When a judge is accused of wrongdoing, this principle becomes even more vital. The judiciary’s independence, its credibility, and the public’s faith in its impartiality depend on how it handles such cases.
Removing a judge is not enough; the process must strengthen the rule of law, not weaken it. Any misstep risks shaking the foundation of justice that millions rely on.
The Indian Constitution sets a high standard for removing judges to protect their independence from political interference. Articles 124(4) and 218 outline that a Supreme Court or high court judge can only be removed by a Presidential order after both Houses of Parliament vote with a special majority — two-thirds of those present and voting.
The grounds are specific: “Proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” This is not a casual process; it is a deliberate safeguard to ensure the judiciary remains a balanced pillar of democracy.
To carry out this constitutional mandate, Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act is precise and thorough. The process begins with a motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The Speaker or Chairman reviews the motion to decide if it merits investigation.
If approved, a three-member committee is formed, consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and an eminent jurist. This committee acts like a judicial tribunal, gathering evidence, hearing witnesses, and — crucially — giving the accused judge a full opportunity to defend themselves. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty does the matter return to Parliament for a final vote, leading to the President’s action.
Alongside this formal process, the judiciary has developed an internal mechanism known as the in-house inquiry system. Introduced by the Supreme Court in 1999, this system was created to address concerns about judicial accountability for issues that may not require impeachment but still demand attention.
A panel of senior judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of India, reviews complaints against judges. While this process lacks legal backing, it has become an important part of how the judiciary polices itself.
In Justice Varma’s case, the in-house inquiry moved with remarkable speed. Within weeks of the fire and the discovery of unaccounted cash, a committee of three senior judges conducted a detailed investigation. They interviewed over 55 individuals, reviewed videos, photographs, and other evidence, and produced a 64-page report.
The report concluded that there was “sufficient substance” in the allegations and that the misconduct was serious enough to warrant impeachment. The Chief Justice of India sent this report to the President and the prime minister. Media reports suggest that the President has referred the matter to Parliament. If true, this could mark only the third judicial impeachment process in India’s history.
However, the speed and decisiveness of the in-house inquiry have raised serious concerns. Unlike the formal process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the in-house system is not bound by law. More troublingly, it may not always uphold the principles of fairness.
According to reports, Justice Varma was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or have legal representation — two fundamental rights in any fair process. These omissions strike at the heart of natural justice, the very principle the judiciary enforces in every courtroom across the country.
This creates a troubling paradox. The judiciary, in its effort to protect its integrity, risks undermining the principles it cherishes. When the institution that demands due process from governments, businesses, and citizens fails to provide it to one of its own, it sends a conflicting message.
The in-house report, while not legally binding, now looms over the formal process. If Parliament forms a committee under the 1968 Act, will it be able to investigate with an open mind? Or will it be influenced by the findings of the Supreme Court’s internal inquiry? This risks tainting the fairness of the outcome and eroding public trust.
India has faced judicial impeachment before, and these cases offer important lessons. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami’s impeachment failed not because of insufficient evidence but due to a political decision by some MPs to abstain from voting.
In 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote, after the Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion. Both cases strictly followed the formal process, showing that fairness is essential, even when a judge is accused.
These precedents remind us that the judiciary’s dignity lies not just in taking action but in doing so justly.
As Parliament considers this case, it must proceed with utmost care. The in-house report should serve as a starting point, not a verdict. A new committee, formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, must investigate the allegations afresh, give Justice Varma every opportunity to defend himself, and base its decision solely on its own findings.
Anything less could undermine the legitimacy of the process and invite future challenges.
This case also highlights the need to clarify the role of the in-house inquiry system. It was meant to be a preliminary tool, not a substitute for the formal process. The judiciary and Parliament must work together to ensure this distinction is clear.
The in-house system should handle minor issues, while serious allegations like those against Justice Varma follow the constitutional path. Without this balance, the judiciary risks appearing to judge itself differently from how it judges others.
In the end, this case is not just about one judge — it is about the moral foundation of our judiciary. The rule of law is not just about outcomes; it is about the process.
Fairness is not a favour granted to the accused; it is the essence of justice. If that principle falters, even for a moment, the entire system is weakened. As the nation watches this case unfold, we must reaffirm that even when a judge is accused, the law remains supreme, and justice must remain untarnished.
The pursuit of justice is a noble goal, but it must not come at the cost of justice itself. Let this moment be a reminder that the strength of our judiciary lies in its commitment to fairness, no matter who stands accused. Only then can we preserve the trust that millions of Indians place in this vital institution.
(Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
