Impeaching judges: A case for system overhaul

Complex procedural layers hinder India’s impeachment mechanism. The need for reform is urgent

The judiciary in India faces numerous challenges today. Debates on legal and institutional reforms have become repetitive, yet their urgency remains undiminished. Ignoring these concerns undermines the judiciary’s legitimacy and efficiency, which are crucial for sustaining public trust. Recent controversies, notably involving Justice Yashwant Varma, underscore a broader institutional crisis. The impeachment mechanism, designed to check judicial misconduct, remains ineffective – strong in theory but weak in practice.

Justice Varma’s alleged involvement in a case concerning burnt cash found at his residence triggered fresh debates. Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the impeachment motion against him is likely to remain stagnant, held up by parliamentary technicalities. Adding complexity, Justice Varma has approached the Supreme Court, asserting he was denied a fair hearing. His case typifies systemic challenges inherent in India’s judicial impeachment process.

The Indian impeachment mechanism for judges is constitutionally vigorous yet politically frail. The process exists not to probe, but rather to seemingly shield judges, reinforcing an appearance of accountability without substantive action. In the history of independent India, no judge has been thoroughly impeached through the complete parliamentary process, despite several attempts, although Justice Soumitra Sen’s impeachment motion was successfully adopted by the Rajya Sabha in 2011. This track record highlights the impracticality and inefficiency of existing impeachment procedures.

The impeachment process itself is a complex and intentionally intricate procedural labyrinth. Layers of procedures, from the motion’s initiation by Members of Parliament to the establishment of an inquiry committee, ensure delays. In Justice Varma’s case, procedural technicalities are expected to overshadow the substance of allegations, effectively paralysing meaningful action. This procedural complexity erodes public confidence and creates perceptions of an institution that is elite and above scrutiny.

Transparency and accountability are foundational for any credible judiciary. Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done. However, the judiciary fiercely guards its autonomy, sometimes at the expense of transparency. Allegations of corruption, misuse of office, and judicial overreach rarely meet with decisive institutional response. Internal mechanisms offer limited accountability, often protecting rather than probing judges.

Impeachment is theoretically a vital check against judicial misconduct. However, it remains ineffective due to political inertia and structural flaws. The danger is not impeachment’s politicisation but its non-use. A check unused evolves into a systemic flaw, undermining democratic governance. The current approach to impeachment effectively nullifies the accountability that the Constitution sought to enforce.

India’s history of impeachment attempts reflects repeated failures, highlighting inherent contradictions and limitations within the system. Justice V Ramaswami, for instance, survived impeachment in 1993 despite clear evidence of misconduct, illustrating how political alignments can undermine constitutional accountability. Similarly, procedural technicalities have consistently delayed or derailed impeachment attempts, emphasising a critical need for reform.

Judicial Accountability 2.0

The recent step by Justice Varma in approaching the Supreme Court introduces a new constitutional conundrum. His contention – that impeachment proceedings denied him natural justice – spotlights further deficiencies in procedural clarity. This unprecedented situation demands urgent judicial clarification to ensure fairness in future impeachment proceedings.

The core issue goes beyond Justice Varma’s case. It lies in the flawed execution of impeachment procedures. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, an impeachment motion must be supported by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, followed by an inquiry committee investigation. The inquiry report then moves to Parliament for debate and voting, requiring a stringent two-thirds majority. This demanding process, coupled with political reluctance, renders impeachment nearly impossible in practice.

Ignoring the mandated Judges (Inquiry) Act procedure could irreparably damage judicial accountability and democratic governance. It risks setting dangerous precedents, inviting further litigation and procedural confusion.

Impeachment is meant to preserve judicial integrity, not undermine it. MPs currently lack crucial access to inquiry reports, obstructing informed decision-making. Withholding such reports from legislators further erodes transparency and accountability. Historical precedents – such as the failed impeachment attempts of Justices Ramaswami, Sen, and others – reveal consistent procedural delays, political indecision, and structural dysfunction.

Furthermore, comparisons with international models highlight the unique weaknesses in India’s impeachment process. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada provide clear, functional procedures for removing judges, emphasising transparent and decisive actions. Adopting similar standards would greatly enhance judicial accountability in India.

To address these systemic deficiencies, comprehensive reforms are essential. It is time for Judicial Accountability 2.0. Such reform must include swift preliminary inquiries, reduce the discretionary powers of speakers or chairpersons regarding motion admissibility, and establish an independent Judicial Ethics Commission for prompt and transparent oversight. These measures would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of judicial accountability mechanisms.

The need for change is urgent. Without reforms, impeachment remains ineffective – a constitutional fiction. Delay and deflection only deepen public mistrust in judicial institutions. ‘Justice delayed against judges translates into justice denied for citizens.’

The impeachment mechanism must be reformed to function as an active instrument of accountability, rather than remaining a dormant constitutional clause. Justice Varma’s case offers a stark reminder of the urgency. Until substantial reforms occur, genuine judicial accountability remains an elusive ideal. Accountability postponed is democracy undermined.

(Vinod is Executive Director of the Centre for Legislative Research and Advocacy, New Delhi; Ravindra is a former Joint Secretary – Legislation, Lok Sabha, and currently secretary to the Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha)