NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who sought to nullify an in-house inquiry panel’s report that found him guilty of misconduct in connection with a cash discovery case.
The Bench observed that Justice Varma’s conduct failed to inspire confidence and concluded that his petition did not merit consideration.
The court said that the in-house investigation and the judges' committee, formed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), followed the due process.
It further ruled that forwarding the committee’s report, which recommended Justice Varma’s removal, to the Prime Minister and the President was constitutionally valid.
"We have held that the CJI and the committee had scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then," said, a two-judge bench of the top court of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih in the verdict.
After this rejection, Justice Varma's alternate legal option is filing a review and a curative petition in front of the same bench that delivered the verdict on Thursday.
The apex court rejected all the submissions raised by Justice Varma through his senior lawyers, Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi.
After hearing extensive arguments from Justice Varma, a two-judge bench of the top court of Justices Datta and Masih reserved the verdict on July 30. Before reserving the judgement in the appeal of Justice Varma, the top court clarified that “message must go to the society that due process was followed.”
During the course of the hearing, the top court asked Justice Varma that his conduct does not inspire confidence. "Your (Justice Varma) conduct says a lot. You should have come then. Your conduct does not inspire confidence," Justice Datta said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Justice Varma, tried to convince the court that the in-house procedure cannot recommend removal, and pleaded that only Article 124 and the Judges Enquiry Act govern the process. "The CJI's advisory letter amounted to initiating impeachment, but the Court noted the recommendation was not binding on Parliament," the veteran lawyer submitted.
Sibal defending his client, sought a direction to declare the in-house inquiry probe report recommendation invalid. "The in house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, if, then it is violative of Article 124. The in-house process is advisory in nature and cannot enforce legal proceedings. Established as an administrative mechanism, it lacks binding legal force. Recommending proceedings in this manner would set a dangerous precedent," he argued.
The court, however, refused these pleas and told Sibal by citing the Judges Protection Act and said Section 3(2) protects non-judicial acts done in official capacity.
The SC noted that former CJI Sanjiv Khanna could have avoided uploading videos of burning cash in Justice Varma's residential premises on March 14 night and added that he was “not a post office” and has duties to act when misconduct is apparent.
Highlighting that the in-house process has been upheld in prior judgments the apex court questioned the delay in filing this plea and said that all issues about lack of hearing or cross-examination could have been raised earlier. "The inquiry is preliminary and non-punitive, not requiring adherence to evidentiary procedures or cross-examination," the apex court observed.
It also refused the plea of Justice Varma to examine and consider whether the cash was of him, noting that "this was not the remit of the committee.”