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 [S1][S2].
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) [S2][S3].
Touches the live debate on judicial accountability, in-house procedure vs statutory inquiry, and the cash-at-residence controversy that erupted in March 2025 [S1].

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 [S1].
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 [S1].
Justice Varma was repatriated to Allahabad High Court and resigned in April 2026 pending the inquiry [S1].

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" [S2][S3].
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968, dated 5 Dec 1968) operationalised the procedure [S3].
Removal motion requires 100 Lok Sabha MPs OR 50 Rajya Sabha MPs' signatures; Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject [S2].
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 [S2].

Committee constituted by: Speaker, Lok Sabha — 12 August 2025 [S1].
Composition (per Sec. 3(2), Judges Inquiry Act):
Justice Aravind Kumar, Judge, Supreme Court of India — Presiding Officer [S1].
Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court [S1].
Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court — distinguished jurist member [S1].
Statutory base: Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with Article 124(5) [S2][S3].
Constitutional grounds: "Proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — Art. 124(4) [S2].
Special majority for removal: Majority of total membership of each House + 2/3rd of members present and voting [S2].
Implementing authority: Lok Sabha Secretariat / Parliament; final removal order by President of India [S2].

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 [S2].
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 [S3].
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 [S1].
Historical:
First post-Independence instance where a judge faces statutory inquiry report after a cash-recovery trigger; comparable in gravity to Ramaswami (1991) [S2].

14 Mar 2025: Cash discovered at Justice Varma's Delhi residence outhouse during fire incident [S1].
Mar 2025: SC in-house committee constituted by CJI; Justice Varma repatriated from Delhi HC to Allahabad HC [S1].
12 Aug 2025: Speaker Om Birla constituted three-member Judges Inquiry Committee under the 1968 Act [S1].
April 2026: Justice Varma resigned pending inquiry [S1].
18 May 2026: Committee report submitted to Speaker; to be tabled in both Houses [S1].

Judges (Inquiry) Act enacted in 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968, 5 Dec 1968) [S3].
Removal motion needs 100 LS MPs or 50 RS MPs as signatories [S2].
Committee composition: 1 SC judge + 1 HC Chief Justice + 1 distinguished jurist (Sec. 3(2)) [S3].
Presiding Officer of Varma Committee: Justice Aravind Kumar, SC [S1].
Third member (jurist) of Varma Committee: B.V. Acharya, Sr. Advocate [S1].
Grounds in Art. 124(4): "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — only these two [S2].
Removal by Presidential order after addresses by both Houses with special majority [S2].
Article extending removal procedure to HC judges: Article 218 [S2].
No Indian judge has been successfully removed via Art. 124(4) to date [S2].
SC's in-house procedure (1999) is distinct from statutory inquiry — non-binding [S2].
Speaker who constituted the Committee on 12 Aug 2025: Om Birla [S1].
Justice Varma was a sitting judge of Delhi High Court at the time of the cash incident; repatriated to Allahabad HC [S1].

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)

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.

"Impeachment" is loose usage; Constitution uses the word only for the President (Art. 61) — judges are "removed" under Art. 124(4). [S2]
Committee is constituted by the Speaker / Chairman, not by the CJI or President [S3].
Composition trap: two judges + one jurist (not three judges, not two jurists) [S3].
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 [S1].

[S1] Judges Inquiry Committee Submits Report to Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha — https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2262562 — (tier: 1)
[S2] Explainer: How a Sitting Judge Can Be Removed From Office — https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/explainer-how-a-sitting-judge-can-be-removed-from-office — (tier: 1)
[S3] The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968) — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1539/2/A1968-51.pdf — (tier: 1)