Indian polity has always been more disapproving about washing dirty linen in public than actually washing the dirt off linen. Which is why the initiation of impeachment proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday in Parliament marked an important moment in the spin cycle of the judicial system. While resignation of Rajya Sabha speaker and vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar took up much of the headlines, it was the submission of a notice of impeachment sponsored by 63 Rajya Sabha members to him - and by 145 Lok Sabha members to lower house speaker Om Birla - that bears more lasting interest. To initiate proceedings, at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs and 50 Rajya Sabha MPs were required to come on board. Proceedings must be initiated as soon as possible.
Under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, a judge can be removed from office for 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'. While Varma's defence hinges on the fact that discovery of currency notes found on the precincts of his residence does not amount to proof of his ownership or culpability, it has raised serious questions that need answers. For this purpose, Birla and Dhankhar's successor should swiftly verify the impeachment notice, admit it, and constitute a 3-member committee to prepare a report under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968. If the committee finds the allegation true, the report would be tabled in the House for discussion and voting.
Transparency and proper procedure are key tools to fumigate institutions like the judiciary. The fact that no judge in the history of Indian judiciary has been impeached should not have any bearing as to how this particular case proceeds. The object is to ensure a trustworthy judiciary, not to worry about reputational damage.
Under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, a judge can be removed from office for 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'. While Varma's defence hinges on the fact that discovery of currency notes found on the precincts of his residence does not amount to proof of his ownership or culpability, it has raised serious questions that need answers. For this purpose, Birla and Dhankhar's successor should swiftly verify the impeachment notice, admit it, and constitute a 3-member committee to prepare a report under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968. If the committee finds the allegation true, the report would be tabled in the House for discussion and voting.
Transparency and proper procedure are key tools to fumigate institutions like the judiciary. The fact that no judge in the history of Indian judiciary has been impeached should not have any bearing as to how this particular case proceeds. The object is to ensure a trustworthy judiciary, not to worry about reputational damage.
