As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, former CJI, aptly stated: ‘Confidence in the judicial process is predicated on the trust which its written word generates.’

On March 14, a fire erupted in the residential bungalow of Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. After extinguishing the flames, authorities allegedly discovered a significant sum of unaccounted for cash in one of the rooms. This discovery ignited a national debate over judicial integrity and the current legal mechanisms used to address misconduct allegations within the higher judiciary. While shocking, the incident raised deeper concerns over the handling of such cases, and whether existing legal systems truly ensure accountability.

The Collegium System’s Role

The Supreme Court’s five-judge collegium acknowledged the unaccounted for money that officials discovered at Justice Varma’s residence, and unanimously decided to transfer him back to his parent High Court in Allahabad. The Supreme Court later defended its decision, stating that transfers are routine administrative decisions, and that its decision to transfer Justice Varma was unrelated to the incident. Justice Varma was previously transferred from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court in October 2021.

The collegium system in India is meant to minimize executive overreach and reinforce judicial independence by overseeing the appointment and transfer of judges. However, incidents like these call into question whether a mere transfer is an adequate response to misconduct allegations by a judge.

The In-House Mechanism

During the collegium deliberations, some judges argued that the gravity of the allegations warranted more than a transfer, as mishandling the situation could undermine the judiciary’s credibility and public trust in the legal system. In response, the Supreme Court invoked its in-house procedures—established in 1999—to address potential wrongdoing or corruption allegations against constitutional court judges.

The origin of these procedures can be traced back to the landmark case of C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) and the recommendations of a five-member committee formed in 1997 to create a structured approach for handling such allegations.

When a complaint is received by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), a High Court Chief Justice, or the President, the CJI first seeks a response from the accused judge. If the CJI deems the accused judge’s response unsatisfactory, the CJI will then appoint an inquiry committee—comprised of a Supreme Court judge and two High Court Chief Justices—to conduct an investigation.

Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be registered against a sitting judge at a police station. If the inquiry committee finds that the accused judge committed misconduct, the possible consequences range from a mere warning to recommendations for resignation, voluntary retirement, or impeachment proceedings in the Parliament of India.

A Rare and Challenging Process of Impeachment

The Constitution of India provides for the impeachment of Supreme Court judges under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) and for High Court judges under Article 217. However, impeachment requires a special majority—both a majority of the total House members and at least two-thirds of those present and voting.

To date, impeachment proceedings have been initiated against sitting High Court or Supreme Court judges in India four times, none of which have been successful. The first was in 1993, when Justice V. Ramaswami faced an unsuccessful impeachment after a motion did not pass in the Lok Sabha due to a lack of special majority votes.

Eighteen years later in 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion against him for financial misconduct—the only instance in which impeachment has succeeded in the Upper House. That same year, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned ahead of his impeachment proceedings concerning corruption and abuse of judicial office allegations.

In 2015, an impeachment motion was passed against Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court over his controversial remarks on reservations—affirmative action policies for historically marginalized communities—having impeded India’s progress. More recently, in 2017, impeachment motions were moved against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts, and in March 2018, opposition parties sought to draft an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Judicial Misconduct and the Challenge of Proving Allegations

While impeachment remains a rare and politically charged process, allegations of judicial misconduct are far more common than the few well-known cases that have reached Parliament.

In 2008, a high-profile ‘Cash at Judge’s Door’ case involving Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court brought judicial corruption into the public spotlight. A packet containing Rs. 15 lakhs, allegedly intended for Justice Nirmal Yadav, led to legal proceedings against her. After a fourteen-year legal battle, Justice Nirmal Yadav was finally acquitted on March 29, 2025—a prolonged battle showcasing the difficulty in substantiating allegations against judges and securing convictions. This case, much like the incident involving Justice Varma, raises a larger question: when the judiciary is presented with an allegation against a judge, does it have an enforceable legal mechanism to exonerate or punish, and, if so, can it ensure that justice is achieved and perceived to have been achieved in the eyes of the public?

Restoring Public Trust: Where Do We Go from Here?

The judiciary acts as the guardian of constitutional principles, civil liberties, and the rule of law, but repeated allegations against presiding judges—either proven or unproven—erode public faith in the institution. Justice, after all, is not just about legal pronouncements; it is about public perception. It is about people’s belief that the system will act fairly, impartially, and transparently, even when one of its own comes under scrutiny.

This is where the greatest challenge lies. While well-intentioned, the current in-house mechanism operates largely behind closed doors. The impeachment process, despite being enshrined in the Constitution, has never resulted in the removal of a judge. Transfers, while a convenient administrative measure, do little to address accountability concerns. What, then, is the path forward?

Perhaps the judiciary must embrace more transparency. The public should not feel that accusations against judges disappear into a black hole, never to be spoken of again. A more transparent investigation process, stricter enforcement of ethical codes, and a willingness to acknowledge and act against wrongdoing—even at the highest levels—are vital to holding the judiciary accountable. Judicial independence does mean that it is insulated from public scrutiny, just as accountability should not be mistaken for interference.

The Justice Yashwant Varma case, like others before it, is not just about one judge. It is a reflection of the system itself. The real question is not whether Justice Varma will face consequences, but whether the judiciary will recognize this moment for what it is—an opportunity to reinforce public faith in its integrity.

Professor Dr. Arvind P. Bhanu is a Professor of law and research and Additional Director at Amity Law School, Noida and Adjunct Professor at University of Adelaide. Kavya Tyagi is a law student at Amity Law School, Noida and Research Assistant to Prof. Dr. Arvind P. Bhanu.