New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma — who faces an impeachment threat following the cash-discovery row — challenging the findings of the three-member in-house enquiry committee, which recommended his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
In his writ petition, Justice Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, sought to quash the communication forwarded by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, recommending action based on the in-house committee’s findings.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, argued that under the in-house procedure, the removal of a sitting constitutional court judge cannot be recommended, as only Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act govern the impeachment process.
Following the CJI’s communication recommending action against Justice Varma, Sibal argued that Parliament was left with no option but to initiate his removal.
To this, the Justice Datta-led Bench said, “Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct, CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister.”
Further, it remarked that the recommendation was not binding on Parliament, even as it questioned Justice Varma’s plea over delay in raising concerns about the lack of a hearing or opportunity for cross-examination during the in-house inquiry.
It added that the in-house inquiry was a preliminary and non-punitive process, not requiring strict adherence to evidentiary procedures or permitting cross-examination.
The apex court said that the in-house process has been upheld in prior judgments and forms part of the judiciary’s self-regulatory framework. It raised repeated questions on Justice Varma’s decision to challenge the in-house committee’s findings after having participated in those proceedings.
“Your conduct does not inspire confidence. Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here (in the SC),” the Justice Datta-led Bench said.
Reserving the verdict on Justice Varma’s plea, the top court remarked that “the message must go to society that due process was followed”.
On Monday, the Justice Datta-led Bench questioned how Justice Varma could challenge the findings of the in-house enquiry committee after having participated in the process.
It said, “Why did you wait for the enquiry to be completed and the report to be released? Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait? In the past, judges have abstained from attending these proceedings. You could have approached us (apex court) earlier as well”.
Then Delhi High Court judge, Justice Varma, came under scrutiny following the March 14 discovery of burnt cash in an outhouse of his official residence in the national capital after the fire brigade had gone there to douse a blaze.
Following the cash discovery, which sent shockwaves through judicial circles, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house enquiry was initiated into the allegations.
The apex court-appointed in-house enquiry committee found both direct and electronic evidence indicating that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family.
It concluded, based on strong inferential evidence, that the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom in the early hours of March 15.
The three-member enquiry committee — comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CJ G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh HC and Karnataka HC’s Justice Anu Sivaraman — found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma.
The committee held that Justice Varma’s misconduct was proven and grave, meriting his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
(IANS)
