House panel questions lack of FIR against Justice Varma in cash row

New Delhi: Members of a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Tuesday questioned the lack of an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma, following the discovery of cash at his official residence and why there is no provision for suspending a judge when inquiry reports on public servants leads to such actions, sources said.

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, the MPs also said increasing the retirement age by 5 years and ensuring a 5-year cooling-off period could address the issue of post-retirement jobs.

The multi-party committee headed by senior BJP MP Brij Lal was discussing ‘Judicial Processes and their Reform’ with emphasis on the Code of Conduct for the Judges of higher judiciary and taking up post-retirement assignments by judges. The Secretary of the Department of Justice and other senior officials appeared before the panel.

The examination of the issue by the panel comes close on the heels of Justices Yashwant Varma and Shekhar Yadav facing trouble following allegations against them. The government is planning an impeachment motion against Justice Varma while the Opposition has submitted a notice for impeaching Justice Yadav.

Some MPs questioned the absence of a provision to suspend judges when inquiry reports prima facie indict them. They referred to public servants facing suspension in such instances but judges keep attending offices though they are kept out of being part of the benches, sources said.

Some of them also said judges' kin practice in the same high court. Even if they do not appear before a particular bench, sources said, the MPs claimed they keep close ties.

The lawmakers also asked about the number of complaints against each judge on charges of violating the Code of Conduct. The officials are learnt to have told the panel that the code is only a guideline even as MPs felt judges were not taking it in its letter and spirit.

To tackle the issue of post-retirement jobs, the MPs suggested that some judges look at opportunities beyond the end of the career and to curb that there should be an increase in retirement age along with a decent salary. There are allegations that some judges cater to political masters, they said.

The government is planning to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma following the recovery of cash. The Opposition has submitted impeachment notices in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha against Justice Yadav for alleged communal remarks but the presiding officers have not acted on it.

The panel had earlier examined the issue of 'Judicial Processes and their Reforms' and submitted a report in 2023. While the panel did not look into a Code of Conduct for judges then, it had a passing mention on post-retirement jobs for judges in the context of raising their retirement age.

It had then said that many stakeholders had raised objections to the post-retirement assignments given to judges and the Committee is of the view that with the increase in the age of retirement of judges, the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and High Courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer may be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.

The panel said in its report tabled in Parliament on 7 August, 2023 said that longer tenures may also ensure the impartiality of judges as often raised criticism is that judges begin looking for post-retirement jobs in the last year of their service. Increasing the age of retirement would not only help the judicial system but also the public at large, specifically the litigants before the Courts, it had said.

An Action Taken Report on the initial report tabled on 7 February, 2024 had suggested the entire gamut of issues related to such appointments of retired judges “may be comprehensively studied again and relooked” upon by the Ministry of Law and Justice.