Judicial Accountability and the K Veeraswami Judgment, 1991 | 23 May 2025

Source: IE 

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.