NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on July 30 reserved judgment on sitting High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma's appeal challenging the in-house probe report, which held him guilty of misconduct in the cash recovery case.
After hearing extensively from Justice Varma and others, a two-judge Bench of the top court of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih reserved the verdict.
Before reserving judgment in the appeal, the top court clarified that “the message must go to the society that due process was followed.”
During the course of the hearing, the top court told 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.
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.
Defending the former CJI’s role, the top court added that he was “not a post office” and had duties to act when misconduct is apparent.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing 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.
The court, however, refused this plea and told Sibal by citing the Judges Protection Act and said Section 3(2) protects non-judicial acts done in official capacity.
It also refused the plea of Justice Varma to examine and consider whether the cash was of his, noting that "this was not the remit of the committee.”
On July 17, Justice Varma, in his appeal filed before the apex court, challenged the in-house probe report, which held him guilty of his misconduct, and said that mere recovery of cash from the outhouse of his official residence does not establish his culpability.
Sibal said the validity of the procedure in the case adopted against him was incorrect. He argued that there was a process for the removal of a judge under Article 124 of the Constitution, and there can't be public debate on it. "The process is flawed," he contended.
Sibal, claiming innocence and being targetted in this case by various entities, submitted that several video footage clubbing with other documents, were put out on the website on March 22, and he was being put to public debate and discussion. The petitioner stood convicted.
Justice Varma's writ petition said, the in-house inquiry committee has failed to ascertain and find out 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.
His knocking the doors of the top court was an unprecedented development, as it was probably for the first time in the history of the judiciary, a sitting HC judge moved the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition challenging the in-house inquiry committee's report which indicted him in the cash-at-residence row.
He had also in his appeal, challenged the recommendation made by the former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him for his 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 him after reversing the burden of proof," said the appeal filed by Justice Varma.
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 also challenged the recommendation made by the former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate impeachment proceedings against him for his alleged misconduct.
"I am denied any opportunity for a personal hearing, contrary to established precedents in similar cases," he said.
Justice Varma claimed that the Committee's substantive findings in the final report of 3 May, 2025 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," he said.
"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 / this Court," Justice Varma highlighted.
"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," he said.
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.
He questioned the in-house committee's findings by contending that it had adopted a hasty procedure to achieve a predetermined result, without affording him adequate opportunity.
Justice Varma also said, the committee failed to address following questions... When, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse? How much cash was placed in the outhouse? Was the cash/currency genuine or not? 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 May 3, provides no answers to these pivotal questions," he contended.
Questioning the very in-house procedure, adopted against him, Justice Varma stated that the committe has no statutory backing and that it violated the doctrine of powers, as the removal of judges is a matter within the domain of the Parliament.
"The Committee failed to notify the petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only “incriminating” material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage (despite Petitioner's requests), denied opportunities of personal hearing," he said.
