Why wait until now to challenge inquiry, Supreme Court asks Justice Varma

SC questions Justice Yashwant Varma's timing in challenging an inquiry that found unaccounted cash at his residence and justified impeachment; next hearing on Wednesday

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Justice Yashwant Varma’s timing of petition challenging the in-house inquiry panel report -- which found him guilty of misconduct after recovery of cash from his residence -- asking why he waited until Monday to challenge the procedure that was adopted post the discovery of half-burnt currency notes.

 

“Did you take a chance of a favourable finding? You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say I don’t know,” the judges told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Varma, now a judge with Allahabad High Court.

 

Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court when the cash was found, told the court that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation, which was based on the three-judge inquiry report, cannot be the basis to remove him.

 

 

The former Delhi High Court judge has also contended that a sitting judge’s conduct cannot be part of a public discourse before the legislative process starts, a constitutional mandate that was defied in his case.

 

CJI Khanna had set up the three-member committee after the allegations of the cash discovery at Justice Varma’s official residence. 

 

The three-member panel, in its report, said that the cash found at Justice Varma’s residence was unaccounted for and he was unable to explain where it came from, which justified his impeachment. This led CJI Khanna to advise Justice Varma to resign, which the latter refused to do. After this, CJI Khanna forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister for further action.

 

“The entire case has become political,” Sibal told the court on Monday, adding that Justice Verma, a sitting judge, had been declared guilty even before the start of the statutory proceedings under which only Parliament has the jurisdiction to remove a judge in office.

 

During the hearing, the bench also asked Sibal why he felt that former CJI Khanna’s action to forward the report to the President and Prime Minister was not a constitutionally valid move.

 

Sibal argued that the CJI, under the in-house procedure, was not authorised to recommend a judge’s removal.

“The President is the appointing authority and, therefore, the matter was placed before it (the President’s office). Since the President acts as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister is the leader of the Council of Ministers, therefore, forwarding to the Prime Minister is also not problematic,” the court reasoned.

The court also said the former CJI’s approach in the matter did not imply that he was “trying to persuade the House (Parliament) to act based on his recommendation.”

 

Sibal, however, clarified that Justice Varma has not moved against the judgment and that the judge was aggrieved with how the entire investigation ensued. 

 

The bench then fixed Wednesday to hear the case again. It asked Justice Varma to place on record the three-member in-house enquiry panel report for its perusal.