REPORTEDLY, THE UNION GOVERNMENT IS SET to introduce an impeachment motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court (and previously in the Delhi High Court) in whose Delhi residence sacks of burnt currency were discovered in March. The government is reportedly reaching out to opposition leaders to build consensus for Justice Varma’s removal.
The in-house committee formed by the then Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’), Sanjiv Khanna, reportedly indicted Justice Varma, observing that the allegations against him were credible and warranted an impeachment. Justice Varma reportedly did not heed the advice of the CJI to resign. The CJI thus sent a letter to the President and Prime Minister to impeach Justice Varma.
However, the manner in which the government is approaching the removal of Justice Varma is troubling for several reasons.
Firstly, the government is creating the impression that it is authorised or has the jurisdiction to initiate the removal of a judge, which is not true.
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, only Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) are authorised to sign a motion to remove a judge. In the case of the Lok Sabha, a total of 100 MPs must sign the motion and in the case of the Rajya Sabha, a total of 50 MPs must sign the motion. The government has no role in this process. Once the motion is signed and submitted to the Speaker or the Chairperson, as the case may be, the decision to accept or reject it lies with them.
