Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift.
The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges?
The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism.
Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995).
The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges.
The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding.
While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence.
In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards.
Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998).
The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all.
The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP MP Krishnaiah urges BCs to support Kavitha in ‘Rail Roko'
Hyderabad: BC Welfare Association leader R Krishnaiah on Sunday urged the Backward Caste communities to support BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha on increasing the reservations to BCs in the local body elections. The Jagruthi president sought Krishnaiah's support for the proposed 'Rail Roko' on July 17. MP R Krishnaiah extended his full support for the BC movement being led by Telangana Jagruthi President Kalvakuntla Kavitha. He said that the association would stand firmly with and participate in every program, including the 'Rail Roko' scheduled for July 17, jointly organized by Telangana Jagruthi and United Phule Front. He urged all BCs to become stakeholders in MLC Kavitha's movement. On Sunday, Kavitha met Krishnaiah at his residence in Hyderabad. Kavitha requested his support for the 'Rail Roko' program, which aims to pressure the central government to approve the bill passed by the assembly to provide 42 per cent reservation for BCs in local body elections. Speaking to reporters, Kavitha lauded Krishnaiah for leading numerous democratic and social movements. She stated that they have been fighting vigorously for two years to implement the Kamareddy BC Declaration given by the Congress party. She recalled that as a result of their struggle for 42 per cent reservation for BCs in local bodies, the assembly had passed two bills. However, she criticized the government, stating that despite the possibility of providing 42 per cent reservations through a GO under Article 243(D) of the Constitution, the government was not doing so and was instead shifting the blame entirely onto the President, planning to go into elections without providing reservations. She accused the Congress government of limiting its love for BCs to words and not showing it in actions. She expressed the need to collectively confront this anti-people policy, especially with leaks suggesting that the cabinet meeting might decide on local body elections. She explained that public movements appear to be the only way to pressure both central and state governments, hence the 'Rail Roko' initiative. She declared, "Aur Ek Dhakka... BC Bill Pakka..." Krishnaiah alleged that the state government was diverting public attention by rejecting the fact that the Constitution grants the state government the authority to determine the percentage of reservations in local bodies. He demanded that a GO be issued if there is genuine commitment to provide 42 per cent reservations. He warned that holding elections without providing reservations would be a historic betrayal of the BCs. He warned that elections must be held only after providing 42 per cent reservations for BCs, otherwise, there would be a 'war' in the state.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
What two deaths say about ‘peninsular' India's insular view of the North East
In June, North East India witnessed two related deaths: Raja Raghuvanshi from Indore was murdered in Meghalaya and Roshmita Hojai, a woman from Assam's Dimasa tribe, drowned in Rishikesh in Uttarakhand. The North East link was common to both incidents but most media outlets in peninsular India had widely contrasting reactions. Racist stereotypes emerged first. A national daily declared Meghalaya as a region of ' crime-prone ' hills with no mention of how many murders or other crimes had been committed in an area where tourism is central to the local economy. One crime was all it took for mainstream and social media to condemn Meghalaya's residents as 'criminals', without bothering to mention that the villagers around Sohra, where Raghuvanshi was murdered by the wife he had recently married and her accomplices, held a candlelight vigil to mourn the killing of a complete stranger. This piece of yellow journalism is what the ToI is reduced to? Armchair reportage at its worst.. Disgusting and slanderous.. — patricia mukhim (@meipat) May 29, 2025 On the other hand, newspapers devoted a two-inch column to Hojai, who was aspiring to be a civil servant, and added that two men accompanying her were detained for questioning. There was a complete absence of journalism on how the life of a young woman was nipped in the bud. These contrasting reactions are not exceptions. Stereotypes abound in peninsular India about the people of the North East as 'terrorists', 'secessionists' and immoral women. Every few months, there are reports of women from the northeastern states were molested in Delhi. After one attack, a message was circulated in one of the universities that the women were assaulted because they do not dress like Indians. In December 2021, when security forces gunned down six young men returning home from daily wage work in Mon in Nagaland, social media groups were filled with messages that the men were secessionists who deserved to die. For over six decades, much of the North East has been under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which gives extraordinary powers to the security forces. It grants the forces the impunity to gun down innocent people, as they did in Nagaland, if they claim to have done it in good faith on the line of duty. I have heard a few who call themselves human rights activists and oppose the murder of civilians in the rest of India saying that the stringent law is needed in the North East because of secessionism. This assertion is rarely backed by an effort to find out how many 'secessionists' there are or why there are conflicts in the region. The 'conflict zone' itself is an exaggerated stereotype. The more than 45 million people of the North East live with the disadvantage of distance with peninsular India, which they call the 'mainland' because of its insular view of their region. This distance and relative isolation are physical as well as psychological and political. For the British colonial regime, the North East was used as an isolated buffer zone between the rest of India and China and Burma. That isolation has continued after Independence. Decades after three wars were fought in the region in the 1960s – against China in 1962, Pakistan in 1965 and following the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 – the North East continues to be a buffer zone for national security. Most North Easterners feel that peninsular India, which views itself as the 'mainstream' centered on the Gangetic Valley Hindu dominant-caste male culture, does not understand them and that 'mainstream' India stops at Kolkata. To most 'mainstream' Indians, the North East is a vague territory between Kolkata and Myanmar about which they know little. One murder case involving both victim and perpetrators from a different state. Case worked out swiftly. And still Meghalaya is continuously trying to bolster confidence about state being a safe tourist destination. — Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) June 18, 2025 During the last decade, this 'distant land of conflicts' has become 'the land of injustice' for the lakhs of immigrants excluded from the National Register of Citizens – like in Assam. But for that the North East rarely enters mainstream Indian thinking. Even the national anthem exalts 'Vindhya, Himachala, Yamuna, Ganga' and ignores the Brahmaputra, which is longer than the Ganga, is the fifth largest river in the world and confers an identity on the North East. But it is not an all-India sacred river. Efforts are being made of late to confer some sacredness on it but by connecting it to the Ganga, not in its own right. Another verse of the national anthem includes 'Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha, Dravida, Utkala, Vanga', in other words, an Aryan-Dravidian India in which the people of the North East do not exist. Lakhs of people from the region are forced to go to 'mainland' India because of the high unemployment and poor education infrastructure of the North East. Because of their Mongoloid features, they are often referred to as 'chinki', a pejorative and racist term for the 'enemy' Chinese. Women among them often face sexual harassment because of their looks and their being perceived as open to sexual advances. These stereotypes have had disastrous consequences in times of crisis. In 2020, after the Covid-19 pandemic broke out in China and later spread globally, there were reports of North East people in peninsular India being harassed, evicted from housing or denied entry because of their 'Chinese' features. A group of Naga students was refused entry to a mall in Mysuru, as were two Manipuri students in Hyderabad. A nurse in Bengaluru reported that a child ran away from her screaming 'coronavirus'. Alana Golmei, who hails from Manipur and lives in Delhi, said that on three different occasions when she and a companion from Meghalaya entered the National Council of Educational Research and Training campus, staff taunted them with 'coronavirus'. The pandemic of racism endures even after the real one subsided. For 'mainstream' India, with its insular outlook and geographical distance from the North East, most conflicts in the region appear to 'secessionist'. Instead, it must recognise that the people of the region are searching for an identity of their own, within the Indian nation and not by joining the 'mainstream' that equates national unity with uniformity. They demand unity in diversity that respects their specificity. They want national security to mean the security of their people while belonging to a pluralist India that respects the ethnic specificity, culture, religion, language and worldview in which they find their identity. That is the pluralistic India mandated by the Constitution and it is time that the North East experiences it as well. The two deaths are an opportunity for peninsular India to look at North East India afresh.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US abortion rates rise three years after Dobbs' new ruling on Roe vs Wade, here's why
Three years after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade , the U.S. finds itself at the epicenter of a new abortion battle, one that's defying expectations and reshaping the strategies of both pro-life and pro-choice movements. Despite the pro-life victory in the courts, abortion rates have not dropped; instead, they've remained steady or even increased, raising provocative questions about the true impact of legal bans and the future of reproductive rights in America. The next big fight for abortion opponents is the organisation Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading provider and advocate of affordable sexual and reproductive health care, operates nearly 600 health centers across the country. The unexpected rise: Abortion rates defy pro-life predictions Contrary to pro-life hopes, the number of abortions in the U.S. has not declined post-Dobbs. Recent data from the Charlotte Lozier Institute shows over 1.1 million abortions occurred from July 2023 to June 2024, matching or exceeding pre-Dobbs levels. This estimate, based on the most comprehensive aggregation of clinic, hospital, and virtual provider data, highlights a resilient demand for abortion services even as legal landscapes shift. Researchers caution, however, that the true number may be even higher, as the U.S. lacks a federal abortion reporting mandate and medication abortions, especially those facilitated by international mail-order, are difficult to track with precision. The new battlefield: Pills, politics and laws The unexpected resilience of abortion rates is largely driven by the rise of medication abortion . With the FDA's approval for mail-order mifepristone, telehealth and shield laws have enabled access even in states with bans, and up to 20% of abortions in 2024 were provided via telehealth under such protections. This has allowed patients to bypass state restrictions, fueling what pro-life leaders call a "direct assault on the sovereignty of states." Live Events Pro-life advocates are now focusing on new priorities in response to these trends. Their big challenges, they say, include weakening Planned Parenthood, by targeting its funding streams. Restricting access to abortion pills remains a top objective, as does investing in supportive political candidates and ballot initiatives. Some pro-life lawmakers believe there is a strong chance of defunding Planned Parenthood through a broader reconciliation bill in Congress, which would block Medicaid funds for organizations performing abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life. Planned Parenthood, responding to these legislative moves, warned in a statement after the bill passed the Republican-led House in May that such provisions would cut off funding for a range of services beyond abortion, potentially forcing about 200 of its 600 locations to close. "If this bill passes, people will lose access to essential, often lifesaving care — cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing, and yes, abortion," the organization said. Meanwhile, other pro-choice groups are leveraging "shield laws" and ballot initiatives to protect and expand access, turning some states into abortion havens while others enforce near-total bans.
