Rapid Fire
Judicial Accountability and the K Veeraswami Judgment, 1991
- 23 May 2025
- 2 min read
The Vice President challenged the constitutional basis of in-house inquiries and called for a review of the K Veeraswami judgment, 1991 following the seizure of cash at Justice Varma’s residence, as the SC rejected FIR petitions against Justice Varma and allowed the in-house inquiry to continue.
- In-House Inquiry: An in-house inquiry is conducted by a panel of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to determine if there is a prima facie case against a judge.
- The CJI’s powers over errant judges are limited to transferring or withdrawing work assigned to them and recommend impeachment for the concerned judge.
- Under the Constitution, impeachment under Article 124 is the only constitutional removal process but has never succeeded in 75 years.
- In 2019, then CJI Ranjan Gogoi permitted the CBI to register an FIR against Justice S N Shukla while CJI Dipak Misra had recommended impeachment, which the government ignored.
- K Veeraswami Judgment, 1991: It classified judges as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act but requires CJI approval for prosecution (registering FIR), protecting the judiciary from executive interference with built-in immunity.
- Immunity Under the Constitution: Unlike the President and Governors (Article 361), there is no immunity for judges under the Constitution.
- The Vice President argues that sanction for prosecution must come from the authority that appoints the public servant i.e., the President of India, vested with executive power under Article 53.
| Read More: Judicial Transfers and In-House Inquiry |
