NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, sitting Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court challenging the in-house inquiry committee’s report that indicted him in the alleged cash-at-residence case. He also sought to quash the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings, alleging denial of a fair hearing and overreach by the judiciary into legislative powers.
In his writ petition filed before the apex court, Justice Varma contended that the in-house panel acted in a “pre-determined manner” and denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself. “The committee drew adverse inferences without concrete evidence against him after reverseing the burden of proof,” the plea stated.
Terming the Committee's mandate of being a fact-finding inquiry was unjustifiably truncated, he said, the mere discovery of cash provides no conclusive resolution. "It remains essential to determine whose cash and how much was discovered," he added.
Justice Varma claimed that the Committee's substantive findings in the final report were untenable, based on unjustified inferences, not evidence.
He also, in his defence, said that, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office. This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges.
"The Constitution confers no superintendence or disciplinary powers on this Court or the CJI over High Courts or their judges. The absence of such authority entails that administrative/self-regulating procedures (such as the In-House Procedure) cannot circumvent or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges or CJI with unregulated authority to act as the arbiter of the fate of other judges of the High Courts / this Court," he highlited.
Thus, to the extent that the in-house procedure permits "recommendations" of any nature by the judiciary for the "removal" of judges, it cannot be legitimized as filling the "gap" between "proved misbehaviour" and "bad conduct inconsistent with high office" alluded to.
Instead, it overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence, he added in his plea.