On the same day, the supreme court said it will set up a bench to hear justice varma’s plea challenging the legal validity of the judiciary’s in-four committte, which confirmed charges of unaccounted. Justice Varma Called It “A Parallel, Extra-Constitutional Mechanism”.

The Developments Also Follow Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s Surprise Resignation on Monday Evening. As The Indian express Reported tuesdayit camera after his decision, as the ex officio chairman of the rajya sabha, to accept the opposition’s notice on the removal of justice varma. Sources Said the government believed that move upstaged it own initiative to bring in such a notice.

Process of impeachment

The procedure for the impeachment of a supreme court is Laid Down under art 124 (4) of the constitution, and article 218 says the same provisions shall also apply to a jude of the high course.

Under art 124 (4), a judge can be removed by parliament through a laid-down procedure on only two grounds: “prove misbehaviour” and “Incapacity”.

For an impeachment motion to be accepted, at least two-thirs of those ” 50% of the “total Membership” of Each House.

If parliament passes such a vote, the president will pass an order for the removal of the judge.

The detailed procedure for the impeachment of a judge is laid down in the judges Inquiry act, 1968. And at last 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. This collection of signatures is the first step.

There is no time limit for the speaker/ Chairman to act on the motion, and they can eat admit it or refuse to do so so. If admitted, a three-time committney of inquiry must be constituted as soon as may be. The committtee is headed by the choice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and has a choice of any high court, and a person who is, in the opinion of the speaker/ Charman, a “DISTINGUEST JURIST”.

The Committee frames the charges, and can see a medical test for the judgment if the impeachment charge is grounds of mental incapacity. The committee has the power to regulate its procedure, call for evident, and cross-sexamine witnesses.

The committee will then submit a report to the speaker/ Chairman with its findings. The Speaker/ Chairman will place the report before lok sabha/ Rajya sabha “as soon as may be”. If the report finds that judge is not guilty, the matter will end there.

In case of a guilty finding, the report of the committee is adopted by the house in which it was introduced, and then an address is made to the present by Ech House of Parliament in the same session, seeking the jude. A motion will be put to a vote, and only the process is over, the same will be repeated in the other house.

The impeachment process diffrs from the internal inquiry with the judiciary.

Process of Inquiry

The need for an internal mechanism with the judiciary was felt in 1995, after allegations of financial improprropriety surfaced against then bombay HIGH Court Chief Justice AM Bhattachharje. After the bombay bar association moved a resolution for the judge’s resignation, a writ petition was filed before the supreme court seeking to restrain the bar.

While hearing the case, justice k ramaswamy and bl hansaria of the sc noted the “Hiaatus between bad Behaviour and impeachaachable misbehaviur” (C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice am bhattacharjee). The sc noted there was no process to hold a judge account for “bad conduct inconsistent with the high office”, when Such condom did not meet the high bar of the implement set by the art 124 of the convention.

Thus, to address such issues, the scree community comprising the senior-room HC Chief Justice at the time, to devise the procedure “for taking suitable acts against jude. Acts of omission or commission, do not follow the accepted values of judicial life… “

The Committee submitted its report in October 1997

Revisited in Process in 2014

In 2014, when a woman additional distribution and sessions judge from madhya predesh filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting judge of the high court, the scevisited rs in -House. Justice JS Khehar and Arun Mishra Summarised and explained this process through “Seven Steps” (Additional District and Sessions judge ‘x’ v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Predesh).

Essentially, this process begins when the chiefice of a HC, the cji, or the present of India receptions a complaint. The cj of the HC or the present will force the complaint to the cji. This complaint can be dropped at any stage, if not found Serious Enough by the cji. However, to test its veraccity, the cji can see a preliminary report from the cj of the HC concerned.

If the cj recommends that a “deper probe” is warranted, the CJI may examine the recommendation and the statement of the judge facing the accusations. A Three-Member Inquiry, Comprising Two Other HC Chief Justice and One HC Judge, Can Be Order.

This committee has the power to devise its own procedure “consistent with the rules of natural justice”, Such as hearing both sides in a case. Once the inquiry has been concluded, the committtee will submit its report to the cji. This Report Must State WHERS:

• There is any substance to the allegations against the concerned judge and,,
• If there is the sufficient substance to the allegations, which they are in Serious Enough that they are initiated of removal proceedings against the judge.

If the report finds there is substance to the allegations, it will be sent to the judge concerned as well. If the committee concludes that is the misconduct is not serious enough to warrant removal proceedings, the CJI may “advise” The judge Concerned and direct this is the committtee’s reforte of the report.

If the committee decides that the allegations are in Serious Enough to Initiate Removal Proceedings, The CJI Will Advise The Concerned Judge to Resign or Retire Voluntarily.

If the judge does not accept, the cji will direct the HC Chief Justice not to Assign Any judicial work to Said judge. In justice Varma’s situation, then cji Sanjiv Khanna Asked Chief of Delhi High Court Deendra Kumar Upadhyaya not to Assign Any Judicial Work to Justice Varma.

Further, the CJI will inform the president and the Prime Minister of the Committee’s find that removal proceedings should be initiated.

In june, it was learnt that Inquiry Committee in Justice Varma’s Case Spoke of “Implied Responsible” on the part of the judge in the recovery of cash, and heim residently for “McConduct”.