SYLLABUS 

GS-2: Separation of Powers between various organs; Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.

Context: A Judges Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, submitted its report to the Lok Sabha Speaker regarding allegations against former High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash case.

More on the News

• The three-member inquiry committee constituted by Speaker Om Birla on August 12, 2025, submitted its report on May 18, 2026, and it will be tabled before both Houses of Parliament in due course. 

• The case originated after burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered during a fire at Justice Varma’s official Delhi residence in Delhi on March 14, 2025, following which an in-house committee constituted by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna reportedly found prima facie evidence indicating his “active or tacit control” over the storeroom where the cash was found. 

• Justice Varma resigned from the Allahabad High Court in April 2026, effectively rendering the impeachment proceedings infructuous, though the inquiry committee continued and completed its investigation.

Removal of Judges

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Enacted under Article 124(5), the Act regulates the procedure for the investigation and removal of judges.

• A removal motion may originate in either House of Parliament and must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members, or at least 50 Rajya Sabha members. 
• The Speaker or Chairman may admit or reject the motion after consultation. 
• If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted comprising: 

1. A Supreme Court judge, 

2. A Chief Justice of a High Court, and 

3. A distinguished jurist. 

• If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, Parliament may proceed with the removal process under Article 124(4). 

• Article 124(4) of the Constitution: A Supreme Court judge can be removed by Parliament on grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity”. 

• The removal motion must be passed by both Houses in the same session by a majority of the total membership of the House, and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. 
• After Parliament passes the motion, the President issues the order for the removal of the judge. 

• In-House Procedure: The in-house mechanism was evolved by the Supreme Court in the C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee Case (1995). 

• The Supreme Court distinguished between “bad behaviour” and “impeachable misbehaviour”, reserving impeachment for serious misconduct. 
• Under this procedure, the Chief Justice of India may constitute a three-member committee to examine allegations against judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. 
• If serious misconduct is found, the CJI may advise the judge to resign or retire voluntarily. 
• If the judge refuses, the CJI may direct that no judicial work be assigned to the judge and inform the President and Prime Minister to initiate removal proceedings. 

• Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988: In the K. Veeraswami v. Union of India Case (1991), the Supreme Court held that Supreme Court and High Court judges are “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

• FIRs against sitting judges can be registered only after obtaining prior approval from the Chief Justice of India. 

• Since judges do not have a conventional employer-employee relationship with the President, sanction for prosecution is provided by the CJI or by another senior Supreme Court judge in cases involving the CJI.

Sources:
Live Law
Newsonair
PIB
Indian Express
New Indian Express