Introduction
The recent allegations surrounding Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Verma have reignited discussions on judicial accountability and corruption within India's higher judiciary. The reported discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence has drawn attention to the systemic mechanisms, or the lack thereof, for investigating and addressing judicial misconduct.
Despite multiple corruption allegations against Supreme Court and High Court judges over the decades, no sitting or former judge in India has ever been impeached or convicted. This raises significant concerns about the efficacy of the existing mechanisms meant to ensure judicial accountability. The legal construct governing such allegations consists of two primary avenues: an in-house procedure established by the Supreme Court and the impeachment process enshrined in the Constitution. However, both have proven ineffective in bringing about any real punitive action.
The Concept of Judicial Immunity in India
Judicial immunity exists to ensure that judges can make impartial decisions without fear of retaliation or personal consequences. This protection is necessary to uphold the independence of the judiciary, allowing judges to rule fairly even in politically sensitive cases. However, this immunity must not be absolute, as unchecked power can lead to corruption and abuse of authority.
The Indian Constitution provides certain protections to judges under Article 121 and Article 211, which prohibit discussions on the conduct of judges in Parliament or state legislatures except in cases of impeachment. Additionally, the landmark K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) judgment mandated that criminal proceedings against High Court and Supreme Court judges require prior approval from the Chief Justice of India, making prosecution exceedingly difficult.
Experts argue that judicial immunity in India has evolved into a de facto shield against scrutiny, with Supreme Court judgments restricting external investigations and public discussions on corruption allegations against judges. The debate, therefore, centers on whether the judiciary is sufficiently accountable or excessively insulated from penal consequences.
Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability in India
Judicial accountability in India is upheld through multiple mechanisms designed to address allegations of misconduct while maintaining judicial independence. These include impeachment, in-house inquiry procedures, and oversight by judicial bodies, each with its own challenges and limitations. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms remains in question, as no sitting or former judge has ever been impeached or convicted for corruption.
Impeachment Process
The impeachment of a judge in India remains an exceedingly difficult and rare process, governed by Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This mechanism, intended to ensure judicial independence, has inadvertently led to near-total judicial immunity.
The removal process begins with a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. Once the motion is admitted, the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha constitutes a three-member judicial inquiry committee. This committee, which includes a Supreme Court judge, a High Court chief justice, and a distinguished jurist, investigates the allegations against the judge.
If the committee finds evidence of “proven misbehavior or incapacity”, the motion proceeds to both Houses of Parliament for voting. A two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha is required for the motion to pass. If successful, the President of India is advised to remove the judge.
However, despite these provisions, no judge has ever been successfully impeached in Indian history. The process is notoriously lengthy, politically charged, and highly vulnerable to influence and lobbying. Even in cases where serious misconduct has been established, judges have often evaded removal by resigning before the process concludes, thereby avoiding formal accountability.
In-House Inquiry Mechanism
The Supreme Court introduced an in-house mechanism in 1999 to deal with allegations of misconduct against sitting judges. This procedure is meant to ensure that the judiciary retains control over its own accountability while avoiding political interference. However, its confidential nature has led to concerns about transparency and effectiveness.
A complaint against a High Court judge must be submitted to the President, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or the concerned High Court’s chief justice. If the complaint is deemed serious, the judge’s response is sought. If found unsatisfactory, the matter is escalated to the CJI, who may order an inquiry by a three-member committee comprising two High Court chief justices and one Supreme Court judge. The accused judge may participate in the inquiry but is not entitled to legal representation or cross-examination of witnesses. If the allegations are deemed credible, the judge is advised to resign. If they refuse, the CJI may withdraw their judicial work or recommend impeachment.
However, this process lacks enforceability. The Supreme Court, in Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (2003), ruled that reports from such inquiries are confidential. This means that even when action is taken, the public remains unaware of the outcome. For instance, while the government acknowledged receiving 1,631 complaints regarding judicial corruption between 2017 and 2021, it remains unclear how many of these led to inquiries or sanctions.
Judicial Oversight Bodies
The Supreme Court Collegium plays a key role in judicial appointments, but it lacks a mechanism for oversight. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was meant to bring transparency to judicial appointments, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, reinforcing judicial self-regulation. The proposed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill sought to establish a system for investigating complaints against judges, but it never became law. The Law Commission has repeatedly recommended independent oversight, yet no concrete reforms have been implemented.
Case Studies: How India Has Dealt with Past Corruption Allegations
The failure to hold judges accountable is evident in several high-profile cases. In 1993, Justice V. Ramaswami became the first Supreme Court judge to face impeachment proceedings for financial misappropriation. Although a judicial committee found him guilty on eleven out of fourteen charges, the motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to political maneuvering, as the ruling Congress party abstained from voting. Similarly, in 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court was found guilty of misappropriating public funds. The Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion against him, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote, effectively escaping formal accountability.
Another example is Justice P.D. Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court, who faced allegations of possessing assets disproportionate to his income. An impeachment motion was filed in the Rajya Sabha in 2009, but before the process could be completed, he resigned in 2011.
A clear pattern emerges from these cases; judges accused of corruption or misconduct often resign before the impeachment process is completed. This allows them to avoid not only formal removal but also potential criminal prosecution or reputational damage. Unlike a formal impeachment, resignation ensures that no precedent of judicial accountability is established, allowing systemic corruption to persist unchecked.
A recent case illustrating the inefficacy of in-house mechanism is that of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Despite making communal remarks at a public event, he faced only an internal inquiry, the outcome of which remains unknown. He continues to serve as a High Court judge with full judicial responsibilities.
Judicial Corruption and the Roadblocks to Criminal Convictions
In theory, judges in India are subject to criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, in reality, prosecuting a sitting judge is nearly impossible due to judicial precedents that have created barriers to accountability. The K. Veeraswami v. Union of India ruling, although intended to protect judges from frivolous allegations, has been widely criticized for making it exceedingly difficult to prosecute judicial corruption.
Over the years, several judges have faced accusations of corruption, yet criminal investigations against them have often remained inconclusive or failed to result in convictions. In 2003, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court was implicated in a land allocation scandal and resigned following a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe; however, he was never convicted. Justice S.N. Shukla of the Allahabad High Court was another judge found guilty of corruption by an in-house Supreme Court inquiry in 2017. However, instead of facing immediate removal, he remained on the bench, drawing a full salary until his retirement in 2020. The CBI filed corruption charges against him in 2021, but the case continues to languish in the courts. Similarly, retired High Court judge I.M. Quddusi was arrested by the CBI in 2017 for allegedly brokering a bribery deal related to medical college admissions. He was granted bail within a week, and the case has made little progress since then.
A notable example is the case of Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On August 13, 2008, a packet containing Rs 15 lakh in cash was delivered to the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, another judge of the same court. It was alleged that the cash was intended for Justice Yadav but was mistakenly delivered to Justice Kaur due to the similarity in their names. Justice Kaur reported the incident to the Chief Justice and the police, leading to an FIR and a subsequent CBI investigation. In 2011, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Justice Yadav under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, after a protracted legal battle spanning over 14 years, a special CBI court acquitted Justice Yadav and the other accused in March 2025, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges.
The lack of successful convictions in judicial corruption cases raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current legal mechanism. The requirement of obtaining the Chief Justice of India's sanction before initiating criminal proceedings acts as a protective shield for judges, allowing them to evade prosecution. In many cases, even when investigations are initiated, the sheer complexity and delays within the legal system result in cases remaining unresolved for years.
Reforming Judicial Accountability: The Road Ahead
Judicial accountability in India needs urgent reforms to restore public confidence. A key area for change is enhancing transparency in in-house investigations. The Supreme Court recently made public the Delhi High Court’s report on allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma, along with his response. Institutionalizing such disclosures, along with mandatory reports on judicial complaints, would improve accountability.
Another critical area of reform is the need to revisit the Veeraswami judgment. The requirement of obtaining the Chief Justice of India’s approval before prosecuting a judge creates a conflict of interest and must be overturned. Independent investigative agencies should be empowered to examine corruption cases against judges without judicial interference. Similarly, the Lokpal should be granted explicit authority to investigate judicial corruption, as an independent oversight body is essential for accountability.
Judicial asset disclosure must also be made mandatory. Currently, only about 13% of High Court judges have disclosed their assets, highlighting a lack of financial transparency. Regular asset declarations would ensure greater public trust.
Broader reforms must also address judicial appointments and removals. The opaque collegium system should be replaced or modified to ensure a more accountable selection process, potentially revisiting a reformed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Additionally, the impeachment process must be simplified and made time-bound to prevent judges from resigning to escape accountability.
Legislative changes are essential to codify judicial accountability. The long-pending Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill should be enacted to establish clear procedures for addressing misconduct. A judicial performance evaluation system should also be introduced to assess judges based on the quality and timeliness of judgments.
Learning from Global Models
Several countries have enforceable judicial ethics codes and independent complaint mechanisms that India can adopt. These systems ensure judicial accountability while preserving judicial independence. Below are some key models from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom that could provide valuable lessons for India:
United States
In the U.S., judicial ethics and accountability mechanisms vary by state, but all states have codes of conduct that bind their highest court judges. Each state entrusts a Judicial Conduct Commission or Disciplinary Body with reviewing complaints. Some commissions have direct disciplinary authority for minor sanctions, while others recommend disciplinary actions to the state Supreme Court or a specialized tribunal to ensure impartiality.
Canada
The Canadian Judicial Council oversees the conduct of federally appointed judges. While Canada lacks an enforceable ethics code for Supreme Court justices, the Council issues advisory ethical principles. Complaints can be filed anonymously or by named individuals. The process includes multiple levels of review, culminating in a public hearing if removal is warranted. Since the Council's inception in 1971, it has recommended the removal of five judges, all of whom resigned before Parliament could act.
United Kingdom
The U.K. Supreme Court does not have a binding judicial ethics code, but justices are expected to follow a Guide to Judicial Conduct. Complaints about misconduct are handled by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which operates independently of the judiciary. If a complaint is deemed valid, it is referred to a judge nominated by the Lady or Lord Chief Justice for investigation. The final decision on disciplinary action rests with the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justice. While the removal of superior court judges requires a parliamentary process (which has occurred only once in 1830), lower court judges have been removed in recent years.
Conclusion
The allegations against Justice Yashwant Verma have once again highlighted the structural weaknesses in India's judicial accountability mechanism. With no precedent of impeachment or conviction of judges, the judiciary remains one of the least scrutinized institutions in the country. While judicial independence is essential to democracy, absolute immunity fosters corruption and erodes public trust.
Reforms are necessary to strike a balance between protecting judicial independence and ensuring accountability. Without systemic change, allegations like those against Justice Verma may continue to surface without leading to any substantial penal consequences. The question remains: will India finally address the long-standing issue of judicial accountability, or will the cycle of impunity persist?
Picture Source :
