Revisiting Judge FIR Rules: Veeraswami Case Insight

Revisiting Judge FIR Rules: Veeraswami Case Insight

Why in the News ?

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned the legal sanctity of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma and urged revisiting the 1991 K Veeraswami ruling, which limits the filing of FIRs against sitting judges.

Judicial Immunity and In-House Mechanism:

• Judicial independence is vital; hence judges are protected from harassment via criminal cases.
• The Constitution permits removal only through impeachment under Article 124.
• Since no impeachment has succeeded in 75 years, the SC created the in-house inquiry mechanism.
• This internal probe is led by the Chief Justice but has no legal sanctity, only moral weight.
• Its findings are sent to the President, but do not automatically lead to prosecution.

Current Relevance and Limited Use of Ruling

• The ruling was later used sparingly by CJIs for serious allegations.
• In 2019, then CJI Gogoi allowed a CBI FIR against Justice S N Shukla.
• VP Dhankhar’s remarks suggest growing demand for a clear legal process in judicial accountability.

About the 1991 Veeraswami Judgment:

• Justice K Veeraswami was accused of holding disproportionate assets in the 1970s.
• A CBI FIR raised the question: Can a sitting judge face criminal investigation?
• In a 3-2 ruling, the SC said judges are “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• However, FIRs require sanction from the Chief Justice of India (CJI), not the executive.
• This ensures judicial insulation from political interference.