Key Points

Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju is expected to lead consultations with all political parties ahead of tabling the motion. Top government officials indicated that cross-party consensus would be crucial, given the constitutional thresholds required for the removal (impeachment) of a judge.

Then Delhi High Court judge, Justice Varma, is at the centre of a controversy after a large quantity of unaccounted cash was allegedly ‘recovered’ from his residence after a fire at his 30 Tughlak Crescent residence in New Delhi. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had ordered Justice Varma’s immediate transfer to the Allahabad High Court, his parent court. Justice Varma was away from the city when the fire broke out at his official bungalow. His family members called in firefighters and the police to control the blaze. After the fire was doused, officials reportedly discovered a massive stack of cash in one of the rooms.

A three-member inquiry committee, constituted under the in-house mechanism for judicial accountability by then CJI Justice Khanna, found the allegations serious enough to merit removal proceedings against Justice Varma.

As per established protocol, then CJI Khanna formally forwarded the committee’s report to the President and the Prime Minister, signalling that the judge had refused to resign voluntarily. Under the in-house guidelines, this step is taken only when the inquiry finds credible evidence that warrants impeachment.

The impeachment of a sitting judge is among the rarest and most sensitive procedures in India’s constitutional framework. Only a handful of judges have ever faced removal proceedings in the country’s history — most have resigned before the motion could be carried to conclusion.

The gravity of the allegations against Justice Varma and the formal findings of the judicial inquiry have now set the stage for a landmark episode in India’s judicial accountability system.

- IANS