logo
In Cash-At-Home Case, Justice Varma's 5 Reasons Why He Shouldn't Be Impeached

In Cash-At-Home Case, Justice Varma's 5 Reasons Why He Shouldn't Be Impeached

NDTV18-07-2025
New Delhi:
Justice Yashwant Varma - the ex-Delhi High Court judge likely to be impeached after "piles of burnt Rs 500 notes" were found at his home - has offered the Supreme Court five reasons why he must not be sacked. These include questions over the jurisdiction and authority of an in-house committee - set up by ex-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - to investigate a sitting judge.
Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution.
The in-house committee red-flagged by Justice Varma consisted of Sheel Nagu, the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; GS Sandhawalia, the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court; and Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman.
Justice Varma's Objections
In-house procedure lacked legal sanction -
Justice Varma has argued the three-member committee that investigated him and the recovered burnt piles of cash lacked authority to recommend his removal from office.
In-house panels - a procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 - are 'administrative in nature', he said, and have a limited function, i.e., they can only act in a fact-finding capacity.
He argued that allowing such committees power to recommend impeachment risks creating an extra-constitutional framework that breaks from Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which outline procedure to remove a judge of the Supreme Court or any High Court.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, he argued, would have been a better balanced option in this case.
Improper investigative procedure -
Justice Varma further argued the investigation process was flawed from the outset because it began without a formal complaint of wrongdoing against him, and made "sweeping conclusions without concrete evidence'" It relied on the "presumption", he said, that the cash was his.
He said the committee also ignored key questions - 'who placed the cash', 'was the money genuine', and 'what caused the fire' - that are central to establishing his guilt or innocence.
Scraps of burnt Rs 500 notes allegedly found at Justice Yashwant Varma's home.
Finally, Justice Varma also argued the committee had failed to offer him a fair hearing to respond to the allegations and explain the money found on the grounds of his bungalow.
The committee, he said, denied him access to evidence it collected and examined key witnesses in his absence, all of which violate the principle of natural justice.
In earlier and comparable situations judges were granted personal hearings - to explain themselves - before action was taken against them, he said.
Media trial caused damage to reputation -
The discovery of the burnt cash at his home - the money was found on Holi by firefighters trying to put out a blaze that had spread to the outhouse - made national headlines for weeks.
NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained
Questions were raised over the sanctity of the judiciary and the possible erosion of public trust, prompting the release of a (partly redacted) initial report into the finding of the money.
Justice Varma has argued the release of that report, and a Supreme Court press release on March 22 that made public the allegations against him, caused irreparable damage to his reputation and career as a judicial officer, and violated his right to dignity.
Visuals from the burnt outhouse on Justice Varma's bungalow grounds.
He also noted that sections of the final report, i.e., the in-house Supreme Court committee, which was meant to be confidential, had been leaked and "misrepresented" by the press.
This aggravated potential damage to his reputation and undermined the sanctity of the investigative process, Justice Varma told the Supreme Court.
Impeachment recommendation is unconstitutional -
Justice Varma also questioned the letter sent by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending he be impeached.
Justice Varma - who was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court after the cash was found - has argued the former Chief Justice did not have the power to seek his removal, and that this can only be done by the President of India, as outlined in the above articles of the Constitution.
Not given time to read report -
Finally, Justice Varma also argued then-Chief Justice Khanna did not give sufficient time for him to review the final report. He claimed impeachment was recommended to President Murmu and Prime Minister Modi "within hours" of Chief Justice Khanna getting that report.
Government To Seek Impeachment?
Last week sources told NDTV the government may introduce an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma during the monsoon session of Parliament, which begins Monday.
The government has been assured of support from the opposition on this topic, sources said.
This was days after the Supreme Court-appointed panel recommended Justice Varma be removed. The panel's 64-page report was accessed by NDTV and these are the operative bits.
The first is on page 60 - "... this committee holds the money/cash was found in the storeroom located within the premises of 30 Tughlaq Crescent... officially occupied by Justice Varma".
The second is on page 59 - "... access to the storeroom was with Justice Varma and his family members, and (was) well-monitored without any outsiders getting access without permission".
No judge in independent India has been impeached, although there have been five it was a possibility. The most recent case was in 2018 and involved ex-Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra, who was accused of administrative misconduct and arbitrary allocation of cases.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bihar history-sheeter with Rs 50,000 bounty shot dead in encounter in UP's Hapur
Bihar history-sheeter with Rs 50,000 bounty shot dead in encounter in UP's Hapur

Indian Express

time5 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Bihar history-sheeter with Rs 50,000 bounty shot dead in encounter in UP's Hapur

The Noida Special Task Force (STF) and the Bihar Police killed Dabloo Yadav, a wanted criminal carrying a reward of Rs 50,000, after a gunfight during a joint operation to nab him in Uttar Pradesh's Hapur district Monday morning. The shootout occurred in the Simbhaoli police station area, where the team intercepted Yadav after the police received a tip-off about his movement. The police said Yadav first opened fire at them, leading to a retaliatory firing in which he was shot dead. Yadav was a native of Sahebpur Kamal in the Begusarai district of Bihar and had been absconding for months in connection with the kidnapping and murder of local Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM) leader Rakesh Kumar. The police said Yadav allegedly abducted Kumar, the party's 20-point block president, from the Sahebpur Kamal police station area by Dabloo in April and later killed him. Kumar's body was later found in a river in the Diara region. 'A reward of Rs 50,000 had been declared for his arrest. He was a key suspect in several other heinous crimes across Bihar,' the Bihar Police said in their statement to the press. 'Yadav was on the run for a long time. Acting on intelligence inputs, our team reached Uttar Pradesh and coordinated with Noida STF. During the operation in Hapur, the accused opened fire and was killed in the retaliatory firing,' the police added.

Supreme Court quashes FIR against shuttler Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case
Supreme Court quashes FIR against shuttler Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case

Indian Express

time5 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Supreme Court quashes FIR against shuttler Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case

The Supreme Court Monday quashed the FIR against badminton player Lakshya Sen, his family members, and his coach over allegations of fabricating the birth certificates of Sen and his brother. Granting the relief, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar said that continuation of criminal proceedings in the matter would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. On February 19, 2025, the Karnataka High Court rejected the petitions by Sen, his family and coach, U Vimal Kumar, following which they approached the top court. Issuing notice in the matter, the SC had on February 25, 2025, stayed further proceedings in the matter. The complainant in this case, who runs a badminton academy, alleged in 2022 that Vimal Kumar, a badminton coach at the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy, colluded with the parents of Lakshya Sen and his brother and forged birth certificate documents in 2010 to allow their participation in tournaments restricted to specific age groups. The complainant alleged that birth certificates were fabricated to claim government benefits after participating in the tournaments. He produced certain documents obtained by way of RTI in support of his argument. In 2022, the police registered a case under sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged record) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the investigation was not concluded after the Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay. While refusing the petition to quash the proceedings against Sen and others, the HC observed that the authenticity of the documents produced before the court was not challenged. 'When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings. There are sufficient materials that are placed before the Court by the complainant, which are the documents that were obtained under the Right to Information Act from the appropriate authority. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitions,' it said. Lakshya Sen, a former junior World No 1, has won medals at various international events, including the World Championships and Commonwealth Games, and is also a recipient of the Arjuna Award. His father D K Sen is also a badminton coach.

Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'
Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'

New Indian Express

time5 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

Kerala govt moves SC seeking rejection of Presidential reference, calls it 'misuse of power'

"A reference under Article 143 cannot be used to overrule findings of law and fact in earlier judgments," the Kerala government stated. It further pointed out that the Union government has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 ruling, making it binding under Article 141. "The President and the council of ministers must act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144," the plea added. The state also accused the reference of misinterpreting Article 200 by falsely claiming that no timeline exists for governors to act on Bills. "The foundational issues in queries 1 to 11 have already been settled in the Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Telangana cases," Kerala argued, urging the court to reject the reference as "misleading." The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has agreed to examine the Presidential reference and has sought responses from the Centre and all states by July 29. A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, will hear the matter on August 29, with the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani. The court will determine whether judicially enforceable timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President regarding pending Bills. The controversy stems from the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, which held that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent to a bill and within one month if a bill is re-enacted. The court had invoked Article 142 to declare Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's inaction as "illegal" and deemed 10 pending Bills as approved. President Murmu's reference challenges this verdict, raising questions on whether Governors are bound by ministerial advice and if their discretion under Article 200 is subject to judicial review. With Kerala now accusing the reference of being a "backdoor attempt" to undo settled law, the Supreme Court's upcoming decision could have far-reaching implications on Centre-state relations and the powers of constitutional authorities. Out of 14 crucial questions, the majority and important were as follows: 1) What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 2) Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 3) Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? 4) Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? 5) In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store