Why wait until now to challenge inquiry in cash row: SC to Justice Varma

Business Standard

4 days ago

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma why he had waited until now to challenge the procedure adopted after half-burnt Indian currency notes were discovered in an outhouse of his residential premises.
'Did you take a chance of a favourable finding? You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say, 'I don't know',' the judges told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Varma.
Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court when the cash was found, told the court that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation, based on a three-judge enquiry report, cannot form the basis for his removal. He also contended that a sitting judge's conduct cannot be part of public discourse before the legislative process begins—a constitutional mandate that was defied in his case.
CJI Khanna had set up the three-member committee following the discovery of the cash at Justice Varma's official residence. The fact-finding committee was constituted under the in-house inquiry procedure to assist the CJI in acting on complaints against High Court or Supreme Court judges.
The three-member panel, in its report, said the cash found at Justice Varma's residence was unaccounted for and that he was unable to explain its source—grounds that justified impeachment. This led CJI Khanna to advise Justice Varma to resign, which he refused to do. The CJI then forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action.
'The entire case has become political,' Sibal told the court on Monday, adding that Justice Varma, a sitting judge, had been declared guilty even before the commencement of statutory proceedings—under which only Parliament can remove a sitting judge.
During the hearing, the bench also asked Sibal why he believed that former CJI Khanna's decision to forward the report to the President and Prime Minister was not constitutionally valid.
Sibal argued that the CJI, under the in-house procedure, was not authorised to recommend a judge's removal.
The court reasoned: 'The President is the appointing authority and, therefore, the matter was placed before it (the President's office). Since the President acts as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister is the leader of the Council of Ministers, forwarding to the Prime Minister is also not problematic.'
The court also said that the former CJI's approach did not imply he was 'trying to persuade the House (Parliament) to act based on his recommendation.'
Sibal, however, clarified that Justice Varma had not moved against the judgment but was aggrieved by how the entire investigation had unfolded. The bench then fixed Wednesday to hear the case again and asked Justice Varma to place the three-member in-house enquiry panel report on record for its perusal.