In a significant development, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Petitions (Lok Sabha) recently presented a report recommending "appropriate action" against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court. The panel concluded that Justice Varma provided "evasive and misleading" testimony during inquiries related to a property dispute, describing his conduct as "gross misconduct."

The recommendations, contained in the committee's report titled "Action taken by the government on the recommendations/observations contained in the 26th report of the Committee on Petitions (17th Lok Sabha) on the representation of Shri Rajeev Dhawan regarding property dispute," were recently presented to the Lok Sabha. The panel's findings stem from a petition filed by Rajeev Dhawan, alleging Justice Varma's involvement in a property matter.

The committee's report stated that Justice Varma "deliberately gave evasive replies" and "misled the Committee," warranting government intervention. This marks a rare instance of a parliamentary body recommending action against a serving High Court judge for conduct outside of judicial functions.

Justice Varma appeared before the committee on two occasions, specifically on May 2 and July 21, 2023, to provide clarifications on the matter. The committee sought the opinion of Attorney General R Venkataramani regarding the scope of its inquiry into a sitting judge.

Key points from the Attorney General's opinion and the committee's findings include:

  • The Attorney General affirmed the committee's power to summon a judge for oral evidence.
  • The committee holds the authority to act under the rules governing contempt of Parliament if a judge's testimony is found to be misleading or evasive.
  • However, the committee cannot inquire into the judicial functions or conduct of a judge with a view to their removal, as that process is governed by impeachment proceedings.
  • The committee can, however, investigate a judge's general conduct that does not relate to their judicial functions.

The parliamentary panel emphasized that its inquiry was not into Justice Varma's judicial decisions or duties but rather his general conduct and his testimony before the committee. The panel highlighted its constitutional duty to protect the rights of citizens and ensure accountability, citing Supreme Court pronouncements on judicial ethics and the public's right to information. Despite Justice Varma citing the matter as sub-judice as a reason for not providing full details, the committee maintained that its focus was on his responses and conduct during the parliamentary proceedings.

The report concludes by urging the government to consider the committee's findings and take "appropriate action" as deemed fit. The nature and specific form of action remain subject to government review and decision, setting a precedent for parliamentary oversight in matters concerning the conduct of judicial officers outside their court duties.