Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: INDIAN EXPRESS

Context:

Veeraswami judgment outlines when an FIR can be filed against a sitting judge.

Veeraswami Case (1991)

Background

Justice K. Veeraswami, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court (1969–76), faced corruption allegations for having assets disproportionate to his income. An FIR was filed against him by the CBI in 1979, but he challenged its validity.

Key Legal Questions

Are judges "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act (1947)?
Who can sanction an FIR against a sitting judge?

Supreme Court’s 1991 Ruling

Judges are public servants under anti-corruption laws. However, prior sanction from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is mandatory to register an FIR against a sitting judge. This shields judges from politically motivated cases and protects judicial independence.

Unlike other public servants, judges aren’t appointed by the President in a typical employer-employee sense, so the CJI, not the executive, decides on prosecution sanction. The CJI acts as the "competent authority" for sanction, not the President or executive, to prevent executive interference.

Justice Yashwant Varma’s Case (2025)

Incident

Unaccounted cash was found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence in March 2025. He was a Delhi High Court judge then but later transferred to Allahabad HC.
The Supreme Court initiated an in-house inquiry (a panel of judges investigating misconduct) in May 2025, but the SC dismissed petitions seeking an FIR, stating the report was sent to the President and PM.

Vice President Dhankhar’s Criticism

Called the in-house inquiry "unconstitutional" and demanded an FIR against Justice Varma.
Argued that the Veeraswami judgment creates a "scaffolding of impunity" by making CJI approval mandatory, which delays accountability.

Key Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability

Impeachment (Constitutional Process)

Article 124 (SC Judges) and Article 218 (HC Judges): Judges can only be removed via impeachment by Parliament for "proven misbehavior or incapacity."
Reality: No judge has ever been impeached successfully in India. The process is politically difficult and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses.

In-House Inquiry

Developed by the Supreme Court to address complaints without impeachment.
Process:

CJI forms a panel of judges to investigate.
If misconduct is found, the panel recommends actions like withdrawing judicial work or voluntary resignation.
The report is sent to the President/PM, but it cannot directly lead to criminal prosecution.

Limitations: Critics call it opaque and ineffective. For example, Justice S.N. Shukla (Allahabad HC) faced an in-house probe and impeachment recommendations in 2018, but the government took no action, letting him retire in 2020.