Top News

The Supreme Court on Monday sharply questioned Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma over his challenge to an in-house inquiry panel’s report that indicted him for misconduct after a large amount of half-burnt cash was recovered from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih asked pointedly why Justice Varma chose to appear before the panel if he intended to later question its findings. “Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?” the bench asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared on Justice Varma’s behalf, as quoted by news agency PTI.

Sibal, in response, said, “I appeared because I thought committee would find out who the cash belongs to.”

The court was hearing Justice Varma’s petition seeking to invalidate the in-house panel’s report, which had found him guilty of serious misconduct. The petition has been filed under the anonymised title XXX v. The Union of India, and does not disclose the judge’s name.

SC Points Out Technical Flaws in Yashwant Varma's Plea

The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the petition was filed. “This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned. We don’t expect the senior counsel to go through the causetitle,” the bench noted.

Sibal argued that under Article 124 of the Constitution, which deals with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court, a judge cannot become a subject of public discussion. “The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme,” he said, as per PTI.

He further added that the inquiry report cannot serve as the basis for an impeachment motion against a sitting judge.

However, the bench remained firm on procedural rigour. “You need to satisfy us based on the petition and the four corners of law. Whom did CJI send this letter to? President is the one who appoints the judge. Prime Minister because President acts on aid and advice of council of ministers. So sending these letters, how does that mean it is for the house to impeach?” the court asked.

Justice Varma Impeachment Recommendation, Timeline and Allegations

Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to the President, urging initiation of impeachment proceedings. His plea claims that the in-house committee reversed the burden of proof, forcing him to prove his innocence.

He alleged that the panel worked under a preconceived narrative and fast-tracked the process at the cost of fairness. According to him, the inquiry’s conclusions were reached without affording him a full and fair hearing, PTI reported.

The report of the panel, led by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, stated that Justice Varma and his family had covert or active control over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was found following a fire on March 14 at his official residence. The inquiry, conducted over 10 days, involved examination of 55 witnesses and an on-site inspection of the fire-damaged residence.

Acting on the panel’s findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending impeachment proceedings.

The apex court has asked Sibal to revise the memo of parties and submit a one-page note with bullet points. The matter will next be heard on July 30.