<p class="bodytext">The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has rightly initiated the process for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, following a probe into the discovery of a pile of cash at the latter’s residence in March. Justice Varma was later shifted to the Allahabad High Court and a committee of judges was set up to investigate the charges. The findings of the committee went against Justice Varma’s claim that he had nothing to do with the presence of cash in his house. The judge has rejected the option of resignation and the alternative of early retirement, leading the CJI to seek his removal from office through impeachment by parliament under Articles 124 and 218. Justice Khanna has sent the inquiry report along with the judge’s response to the President and the Prime Minister for formal initiation of the process.</p>.CJI Sanjiv Khanna names Justice B R Gavai as successor .<p class="bodytext">Impeachment involves the legislature and the executive and is a laborious process that is best avoided. It has been tried only five times since Independence. Past impeachments are remembered as cases of failure to ensure justice in the very system of justice. Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court was the first judge to face impeachment proceedings, but the motion seeking his ouster was defeated in the Lok Sabha. In Justice Varma’s case, the initiative for removal has come from the highest court, for the first time in the country. The case against Justice Varma will be seen as not only a test of the higher judiciary’s adherence to probity and accountability but also the executive’s readiness to back the judiciary in its efforts to affirm these values.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Cases of impeachment and accusations of misconduct or malpractices against judges have always raised questions on the liability of these judges even after they resign or are removed from office. There have been demands for action against the offenders under the laws of the land. Calls have also been made for a review of the cases they adjudicated. These demands are extremely difficult to meet – the onus is on the judiciary to maintain public trust. The Supreme Court has done well to take steps to improve transparency and accountability in the functioning of the higher judiciary. It recently published the details of candidates recommended for appointment as high court judges and the assets and liabilities of 21 of its judges. The eventual action in the case of Justice Varma will also be keenly watched.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has rightly initiated the process for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, a former judge of the Delhi High Court, following a probe into the discovery of a pile of cash at the latter’s residence in March. Justice Varma was later shifted to the Allahabad High Court and a committee of judges was set up to investigate the charges. The findings of the committee went against Justice Varma’s claim that he had nothing to do with the presence of cash in his house. The judge has rejected the option of resignation and the alternative of early retirement, leading the CJI to seek his removal from office through impeachment by parliament under Articles 124 and 218. Justice Khanna has sent the inquiry report along with the judge’s response to the President and the Prime Minister for formal initiation of the process.</p>.CJI Sanjiv Khanna names Justice B R Gavai as successor .<p class="bodytext">Impeachment involves the legislature and the executive and is a laborious process that is best avoided. It has been tried only five times since Independence. Past impeachments are remembered as cases of failure to ensure justice in the very system of justice. Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court was the first judge to face impeachment proceedings, but the motion seeking his ouster was defeated in the Lok Sabha. In Justice Varma’s case, the initiative for removal has come from the highest court, for the first time in the country. The case against Justice Varma will be seen as not only a test of the higher judiciary’s adherence to probity and accountability but also the executive’s readiness to back the judiciary in its efforts to affirm these values.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Cases of impeachment and accusations of misconduct or malpractices against judges have always raised questions on the liability of these judges even after they resign or are removed from office. There have been demands for action against the offenders under the laws of the land. Calls have also been made for a review of the cases they adjudicated. These demands are extremely difficult to meet – the onus is on the judiciary to maintain public trust. The Supreme Court has done well to take steps to improve transparency and accountability in the functioning of the higher judiciary. It recently published the details of candidates recommended for appointment as high court judges and the assets and liabilities of 21 of its judges. The eventual action in the case of Justice Varma will also be keenly watched.</p>