Judges Cannot Claim Immunity If Allegations Have Enough Merit: SC On Justice Varma’s Petition
Justice Varma had also requested the cancellation of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court held that a judge cannot claim immunity if the allegations made against them hold sufficient merit—an observation that may have far-reaching implications on the independence of the judiciary.
While rejecting the petition of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma—who had sought to set aside an in-house inquiry report that found him guilty of misconduct in connection with a cash recovery case—the apex court observed that judges cannot take shelter behind immunity provisions if the charges are found to be credible.
In India, judges enjoy protection from civil and criminal prosecution for actions carried out as part of their judicial duties. They cannot be prosecuted without prior approval for official acts, and their conduct cannot be debated in Parliament or legislatures except during an impeachment process.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih observed that the Chief Justice of India holds an important moral responsibility as the head of the judiciary to ensure the institution functions in a transparent, efficient, and constitutionally sound manner.
“We say without hesitation that the Chief Justice of India is not merely a post office between the committee and the President/Prime Minister, expected to forward the report without remarks or suggestions. The CJI plays a key, if not the most important, role in upholding institutional integrity and assessing whether a judge has engaged in misconduct,” the bench noted.
Justice Varma had also challenged the May 8 recommendation from then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to start impeachment proceedings against him.
The Supreme Court further clarified that the in-house inquiry mechanism is not a process for the removal of a judge, and no action can be taken solely based on the report of such a committee.
“The nature of the inquiry in this case is preliminary, temporary, and not final, and it does not breach any principle of natural justice… The in-house inquiry and its report form part of the procedure but do not themselves trigger removal of a judge, which requires the constitutional procedure… We stress again that a timely step can prevent larger consequences,” the court remarked.
The top court also said that the Inquiry Act does not prevent the accused judge from presenting a proper defence and submitting admissible and relevant evidence once witness testimonies supporting the charges are recorded.
“If the committee set up under the Inquiry Act places any reliance on the report prepared through the earlier internal process, the concerned judge must be informed and given an opportunity to challenge its reliability or acceptability as per the law,” the court said.
What Justice Varma Argued
In his petition, Justice Varma stated that the inquiry “shifted the burden of proof” onto him, requiring him to disprove the allegations. He claimed the panel’s conclusions were based on a pre-set narrative, and that the inquiry process was rushed with an aim to wrap up the proceedings quickly—even if it compromised “procedural fairness”.
His petition argued that the panel arrived at adverse conclusions without giving him a full and fair opportunity to defend himself.
