SC reserves judgment on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against in-house panel report

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea seeking quashing of the in-house committees’ report as well as Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s communication to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending his removal over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash from his then official residence in Delhi on March 14.

The court also observed that “Your (Justice Varma’s) conduct does not inspire confidence”.

Advertisement

Making a distinction between a ‘recommendation for removal’ by the then Chief Justice Khanna and the ‘removal’ as such, Justice Dipankar Datta heading a bench also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih said that after the receipt of the report from the in-house committee, the then Chief Justice could not have acted as post-office just forwarding it the President and the Prime Minister.

As Sibal argued that the in-house mechanism was created to address a significant legal vacuum, Justice Datta said, “precisely, the in-house process was created in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. The Chief Justice is not a post office, and he also has some duties towards the nation. If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct, he can inform that and that he has informed the President and Prime Minister, that is all.”

In the course of the hearing, which lasted over an hour, there were hints that the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the matter as parliament is already considering the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma on a motion initiated by the Union government in the wake of the then CJI’s May 8 recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Yashwant Varma, pointed out that both the inquiry committee report and the tapes, which were mandated to be kept confidential, were made public and leaked, respectively.

However, the bench said, “If there was some lapse in the observance (of confidentiality), the same cannot curtail the powers of the parliament. The probe committee set up by the parliament will have members of eminence, and they cannot be influenced.”

As Sibal pointed to the confines of the ‘in-house’ mechanism created in 1999, the 1995 judgment, procedure for the impeachment of judges for their “misbehaviour or incapacity” under Article 124 (5) of the constitution and the provisions if the 1968 Judges (Inquiry) Act, the bench referred to the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 saying that “You should have assisted us on the Judges (Protection) Act. Law is there. We are not pinning you down on why you came so late. This Section 3(2) of the Act is the complete answer to your submission.”

The Section 3 (2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 says, “(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.”

Questioning the conduct of Justice Varma who first appeared before the three- judge inquiry committee and now questioning its report and the consequent recommendation of his removal, the bench said, “You appeared before the committee hoping to be exonerated but now you are finding its report unpalatable.”

Justice Varma had contended that the in-house inquiry committee did not conduct a thorough probe, including into the sources of money and to whom it belonged. However, the bench today said that let Parliament decide, why we should determine if the cash was yours.

Stating that the points now being raised by Justice Varma are major, the bench asked the petitioner judge why he did not raise them earlier instead of participating in the proceedings of the inquiry committee.

The bench said, “The points you are raising are major but it could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. Let parliament decide. Why should we decide whether it is your money or not. That was not the remit of the in-house committee.”

Justice Varma’s petition before the top 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 access to evidence including CCTV footage, and drawing adverse inferences without establishing the source or amount of cash recovered.

The case traces back to a fire incident at Justice Verma’s then-official residence in Delhi on March 14. While extinguishing the fire, Delhi Fire Service personnel reportedly discovered semi-burnt bundles of cash in a storeroom.

The incident was widely reported, and a video of burning cash 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 Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman. The committee submitted its report on May 3. Later, Chief Justice Khanna recommended Justice Verma’s removal, leading to the present challenge before the top court.