A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta and also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih asked, “Why did you appear before the (three-judge) inquiry committee? You should have raised all these points before the court instead.”
File photo of Justice Yashwant Varma
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Justice Yashwant Verma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, for challenging the findings of a three-judge in-house committee that indicted him after unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered by Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14 from a storeroom adjacent to his official residence during a fire-fighting operation.
A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta and also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih asked, “Why did you appear before the (three-judge) inquiry committee? You should have raised all these points before the court instead.”
Advertisement
The bench’s remarks came as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Verma, argued that the ‘in-house inquiry’ mechanism adopted in 1999 could not be used as a substitute for or parallel to the procedure laid down under the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for initiating the process of a judge’s removal on grounds of “misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Advertisement
Sibal contended that the process—starting with the formation of the in-house committee, followed by its report on May 3, and the subsequent recommendation for Justice Verma’s removal made on May 8 by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna—was unconstitutional.
He pointed to Articles 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, as the exclusive framework governing a judge’s removal, which requires a formal process initiated in Parliament.
Quoting Article 124(5), Sibal said: “Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.”
He further argued that even Parliament cannot deliberate on a judge’s conduct unless a formal inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act has been completed and misbehaviour duly established. “If Parliament itself cannot discuss a judge’s conduct without due process, how can such findings be made public through press releases or sent to the President and Prime Minister?” Sibal asked.
Referring to the May 8 communication from former CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister recommending Justice Verma’s removal, Sibal submitted that removal proceedings are political in nature and can only be initiated by Members of Parliament—not by the executive. “This letter cannot be treated as a trigger for removal,” he said.
The bench then pointedly asked, “Who is the appointing authority?”—suggesting that since the President appoints judges, the CJI’s letter could be interpreted as a communication to the appointing authority rather than a formal impeachment initiation.
When the court stated, “You cannot dispute the incident of fire and the recovery of cash,” Sibal responded, “But the cash does not belong to me. My staff wasn’t present. They were not informed about the recovery either.”
The bench also questioned why Justice Verma had not objected to the inquiry process earlier. “You are a constitutional authority. Why didn’t you object when the committee was formed? Judges in the past have declined to participate in similar in-house inquiries,” said Justice Datta.
The bench further remarked, “It is one thing to say the procedure was transgressed, and another to say whether the procedure was followed or not. The recommendation is for the initiation of proceedings for removal.”
To this, Sibal responded that such recommendations cannot form the basis for impeachment.
The hearing also revealed that certain documents cited by Sibal were not attached to the petition. The bench, therefore, adjourned the matter to Wednesday, July 30, directing that all relevant documents be placed on record. It also asked for a one-page note listing Justice Verma’s key legal arguments.
Justice Verma’s petition before the apex court seeks to quash both the May 3 committee report and the May 8 recommendation for his removal. He maintains that no formal complaint preceded the probe and that the in-house committee violated principles of natural justice—by failing to inform him of its procedure, denying him access to evidence including CCTV footage, and drawing adverse inferences without establishing the source or amount of the cash recovered.
The case originates from a fire incident at Justice Verma’s then-official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on March 14. While extinguishing the blaze, Delhi Fire Service personnel reportedly discovered semi-burnt bundles of cash in a storeroom. The incident garnered national attention after a video of burning currency went viral, triggering allegations of corruption and prompting a press release from the Supreme Court.
On March 22, then CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house panel comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court). The committee submitted its report on May 3. Later, Chief Justice Khanna recommended Justice Verma’s removal, leading to the current legal challenge before the top court.
Advertisement
