JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE SUBMITS REPORT TO HON'BLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA

1. At a Glance

• Judges Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 submitted its report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on 18 May 2026 in Parliament House [1][2].
• The report flows from the only constitutional mechanism for removal of a sitting High Court / Supreme Court judge under Articles 124(4)–(5) / 217 / 218 of the Constitution — examinable for both Polity (GS-II) and Ethics (GS-IV) [2][3].
• Touches the live debate on judicial accountability, in-house procedure vs statutory inquiry, and the cash-at-residence controversy that erupted in March 2025 [1].

2. Why in the News

• 18 May 2026: Three-member Judges Inquiry Committee handed its report to Speaker Lok Sabha; to be laid before both Houses as per the 1968 Act [1].
• Inquiry concerned discovery of unaccounted cash at the outhouse of Justice Varma's official Delhi residence on 14 March 2025 during a fire-fighting operation, when he was a Judge of the Delhi High Court [1].
• Justice Varma was repatriated to Allahabad High Court and resigned in April 2026 pending the inquiry [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Article 124(4) (SC judges; extended to HC judges via Art. 218) prescribes removal by Presidential order after an address by both Houses supported by a special majority on grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" [2][3].
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968, dated 5 Dec 1968) operationalised the procedure [3].
• Removal motion requires 100 Lok Sabha MPs OR 50 Rajya Sabha MPs' signatures; Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject [2].
• Past precedents: V. Ramaswami (1993) — motion failed in LS; Soumitra Sen (2011) — resigned before LS vote; C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, P.D. Dinakaran — proceedings lapsed/resigned. No judge has ever been removed by this route [2].

4. Core Static Facts

• Committee constituted by: Speaker, Lok Sabha — 12 August 2025 [1].
• Composition (per Sec. 3(2), Judges Inquiry Act):
• Justice Aravind Kumar, Judge, Supreme Court of India — Presiding Officer [1].
• Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court [1].

• Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court — distinguished jurist member [1].

• Statutory base: Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with Article 124(5) [2][3].

• Constitutional grounds: "Proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — Art. 124(4) [2].
• Special majority for removal: Majority of total membership of each House + 2/3rd of members present and voting [2].
• Implementing authority: Lok Sabha Secretariat / Parliament; final removal order by President of India [2].

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

• Legal / Constitutional:
• Only Art. 124(4) procedure can effect removal; in-house procedure of SC (1999) is non-statutory and can at most recommend resignation [2].

• Committee's findings are binding on the House under Sec. 6(2): if it finds the judge not guilty, no further motion lies; if guilty, motion proceeds with report [3].

• Ethical / Governance (GS-IV):

• Tests judicial integrity, probity in public life, conflict between judicial independence vs accountability.

• Highlights opacity in judges' asset declaration and collegium-era discipline mechanisms.

• Administrative:

• SC's in-house inquiry panel (March 2025) under then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna preceded the statutory committee — demonstrating dual-track scrutiny [1].

• Historical:

• First post-Independence instance where a judge faces statutory inquiry report after a cash-recovery trigger; comparable in gravity to Ramaswami (1991) [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 14 Mar 2025: Cash discovered at Justice Varma's Delhi residence outhouse during fire incident [1].
• Mar 2025: SC in-house committee constituted by CJI; Justice Varma repatriated from Delhi HC to Allahabad HC [1].
• 12 Aug 2025: Speaker Om Birla constituted three-member Judges Inquiry Committee under the 1968 Act [1].
• April 2026: Justice Varma resigned pending inquiry [1].
• 18 May 2026: Committee report submitted to Speaker; to be tabled in both Houses [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Judges (Inquiry) Act enacted in 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968, 5 Dec 1968) [3].
• Removal motion needs 100 LS MPs or 50 RS MPs as signatories [2].
• Committee composition: 1 SC judge + 1 HC Chief Justice + 1 distinguished jurist (Sec. 3(2)) [3].
• Presiding Officer of Varma Committee: Justice Aravind Kumar, SC [1].
• Third member (jurist) of Varma Committee: B.V. Acharya, Sr. Advocate [1].
• Grounds in Art. 124(4): "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — only these two [2].
• Removal by Presidential order after addresses by both Houses with special majority [2].
• Article extending removal procedure to HC judges: Article 218 [2].
• No Indian judge has been successfully removed via Art. 124(4) to date [2].
• SC's in-house procedure (1999) is distinct from statutory inquiry — non-binding [2].
• Speaker who constituted the Committee on 12 Aug 2025: Om Birla [1].
• Justice Varma was a sitting judge of Delhi High Court at the time of the cash incident; repatriated to Allahabad HC [1].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Judiciary; Separation of Powers; Appointment/Removal of Judges.
• GS-IV: Ethics in Public Service — probity in judiciary; integrity of constitutional functionaries.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The statutory procedure for removal of judges under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has rarely delivered outcomes. Critically examine in light of recent inquiries." (GS-II, 15M) 2. "Judicial independence cannot be a shield against accountability. Discuss with reference to recent allegations against sitting judges." (GS-IV, 10M) 3. "Compare the in-house procedure of the Supreme Court with the statutory mechanism under Article 124(4). Suggest reforms." (GS-II, 15M)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) judgment, 2015 — counterpart on appointments side.
• Collegium system — opacity critique linked to accountability.
• Article 124, 217, 218, 124A–C — judiciary articles cluster.
• In-house Procedure of SC, 1999 — non-statutory discipline mechanism.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — adjacent judicial accountability statute.
• All India Judicial Service (Art. 312) — debate on judicial HR reform.
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) — prior sanction for prosecution of judges.
• Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) — code of conduct for judges.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• "Impeachment" is loose usage; Constitution uses the word only for the President (Art. 61) — judges are "removed" under Art. 124(4). [2]
• Committee is constituted by the Speaker / Chairman, not by the CJI or President [3].
• Composition trap: two judges + one jurist (not three judges, not two jurists) [3].
• Removal applies to SC judges (Art. 124), HC judges (Art. 217/218), CAG (Art. 148), CEC (Art. 324) — same procedure; do not confuse with simple-majority removals (e.g., AG).
• Justice Varma was at the Delhi HC at the time of the cash incident, later repatriated to Allahabad HC, not the other way around [1].