The process to remove judges is not initiated often in the country - taking place only five times since Independence. But in recent times, the process has been started for two judges - both from the Allahabad High Court -- within months of each other.
But the progress of the two cases appear to vary widely, with one being conducted by the Rajya Sabha and the other being an internal process of the judiciary.
In December last year, Justice Shekhar Yadav was accused of giving a hate speech while in March, burnt cash was found in the house of Justice Yashwant Varma.
The in-house procedure against Justice Verma is expected to be wrapped up in the coming monsoon session of Parliament. But the fate of Justice Shekhar Yadav is not yet decided.
The cases highlight the procedural complexities involved in holding High Court judges accountable in India. While Justice Yadav's matter is locked within Parliament's jurisdiction, Justice Varma's case progressed swiftly under the judiciary's internal mechanisms.
How Parliamentary Procedure Blocked Internal Probe
The objectionable speech of Justice Yadav was made at an event of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on December 8. Days later, on December 13, 55 MPs led by senior lawyer and MP Kapil Sibal had submitted a proposal for his removal to the Rajya Sabha Speaker.
The prompt action barred the way for the Supreme Court to begin any in-house procedure against the judge.
In March, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wrote to the Supreme Court's Secretary General about Justice Yadav, formally starting the process of the Judges Inquiry Act.
Under this, the Rajya Sabha Chairman has to form a three-member inquiry panel. This would include the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of the High Court and an "eminent jurist", who will investigate the grounds on which the removal of the concerned judge has been sought.
After this the committee will frame charges against the concerned judge, who will be allowed to respond within a specified time.
The Supreme Court had also moved parallelly on the matter.
On December 17, the collegium headed by then Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna --comprising the seniormost judges, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A S Oka -- had taken note of news reports about Justice Yadav's December 8 speech. On December 10, they sought a report from the High Court, tasking it with investigating the issue.
Justice Yadav appeared before the Collegium in the Supreme Court on December 17 and offered to explain the purpose, meaning and context of his speech. He contended that the media had selectively quoted from his speech to create unnecessary controversy.
But the Collegium did not agree and reprimanded him over certain of his statements. The Collegium told him that being in a constitutional position, the conduct of an judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court is under constant scrutiny and he is expected to maintain the dignity of his office.
The matter then lost momentum and on February 13, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar clarified that only Parliament has the right to remove a High Court judge constitutionally, as the notice for removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav is pending with him.
The Rajya Sabha chairman had earlier submitted the removal motion, and the Collegium realised that they did not have an internal investigation process available to them since the matter was already under consideration of the Rajya Sabha chairman.
Burnt Cash at Justice Yashwant Varma's Residence Sparked In-House Action
Justice Yashwant Varma had come under scrutiny after a fire broke out at his official residence on March 14 and wads of half-burnt cash was found.
This time, though, there was no involvement of MPs.
In absence of a parliamentary motion, then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry and appointed a three-judge panel to conduct an investigation.
The committee confirmed the presence of cash at Justice Varma's residence and submitted its report to the CJI.
Soon after, Justice Khanna sent the findings to the Prime Minister and the President, recommending initiation of removal proceedings as per the Judges Inquiry Act and Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
The government has indicated that it may table the motion for Justice Varma's removal during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament.
