NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned sitting Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma as to why he did not challenge the validity of the formation of the in-house inquiry committee and why he submitted to its jurisdiction if it was allegedly contrary to constitutional provisions.
"Why did you (Justice Varma) wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait for it? Why did you participate in the inquiry panel proceedings? Judges in the past have abstained from attending these proceedings," the bench asked Justice Varma.
The two-judge bench of the top court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, made these observations while hearing Justice Varma’s petition challenging the in-house committee report that indicted him following the recovery of a huge sum of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
On July 17, Justice Varma filed an appeal before the apex court challenging the findings of the in-house probe report, which held him guilty of misconduct. He submitted that the mere recovery of cash from the outhouse of his official residence did not establish his culpability.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, contended that the procedure adopted against the judge was flawed. He argued that the Constitution provides a process for the removal of judges under Article 124 and that such matters should not be subject to public debate. "The process is flawed," he said.
Sibal claimed that Justice Varma was innocent and being allegedly targeted by various entities. He said that several video footages, along with other documents, were uploaded to a website on 22 March, leading to public discussion and debate. “The petitioner stood convicted,” he said.
He further argued that under the Constitution, the release of video tapes, putting them on a website, media discussions, and public accusations against a judge, as well as the publication of the in-house inquiry committee’s findings, were all prohibited.
However, the court rejected Sibal’s arguments and asked him, "How can he say that it was flawed?" The court posted the writ petition for further hearing on Wednesday, 30 July.
The court also noted that inquiries under the Judges (Inquiry) Act carry broader powers to examine and take evidence under oath. It clarified that previous Supreme Court judgments have upheld the sanctity of the in-house procedure.
Sibal submitted that forwarding the probe report to the President and the Prime Minister was incorrect, as the impeachment motion was to be initiated by Members of Parliament and not the government.
To this, the court responded that the appointing authority in Justice Varma's case was the President, who acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the in-house inquiry report was rightly sent to the President and the Prime Minister.
Sibal further submitted that there was no proven misbehaviour by the judge in connection with the discovery of the cash. The court, however, pointed out that Justice Varma had not denied the presence of the cash or the fire incident that followed.
Sibal added that there was no conclusive finding as to whom the cash belonged.
Justice Varma’s writ petition stated that the in-house inquiry committee failed to determine the ownership of the cash recovered or how it was removed from the premises. "Mere discovery is not sufficient to link him to any wrongdoing, without any clear evidence regarding its ownership and control," he claimed.
Justice Varma’s move to approach the Supreme Court was described as an unprecedented development—possibly the first instance in Indian judicial history where a sitting High Court judge has filed a writ petition before the apex court challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee.
In his appeal, Justice Varma also challenged the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him for alleged misconduct.
"The in-house inquiry committee made the findings without giving me a fair opportunity to respond. The committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and even without finding any concrete evidence, merely drew adverse inferences against me after reversing the burden of proof," the appeal stated.
He said the committee’s mandate of conducting a fact-finding inquiry was unjustifiably truncated. “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 contended that the in-house procedure lacks statutory backing and violated the doctrine of separation of powers. He said the removal of judges is a matter solely within the Parliament’s domain.
"The Constitution confers no 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 or this Court," he stated.
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 legitimised as filling the "gap" between "proved misbehaviour" and "bad conduct inconsistent with high office" alluded to. Instead, he argued, it overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thereby eroding judicial independence and public confidence.
Justice Varma said the committee had allegedly adopted a hasty procedure to achieve a predetermined result, without affording him an adequate opportunity to respond.
He also raised unanswered questions that the committee allegedly failed to address, such as: when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse? How much cash was involved? Was the currency genuine or counterfeit? What was the cause of the fire?
"The mere discovery of cash provides no conclusive resolution. It remains essential to determine whose cash and how much was discovered. These aspects bear directly on the severity of the allegations, and equally, on the potential for orchestrated scandal—added to by the cause of the fire, whether intentional or accidental, and the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged 'removal' of the currency. The final report of 3 May provides no answers to these pivotal questions," he contended.
Challenging the very basis of the in-house procedure adopted against him, Justice Varma stated that the committee has no statutory authority and had violated constitutional doctrines.
He alleged that the committee failed to notify him of the procedure it devised, denied him the opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence collected, examined witnesses in his absence, gave him only paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only “incriminating” material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence such as CCTV footage (despite his requests), and denied him a personal hearing.
Acting on the report, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending the judge's impeachment.
