SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings

Business Standard

2 days ago

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's challenge to an in-house inquiry panel's report that found him involved in the cash discovery matter.
The court questioned Justice Varma's decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage.
'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable finding, and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction — conduct is also relevant,' Justice Datta said.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge, and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal.
'If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,' he argued.
Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India.
Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in judgments delivered by the Supreme Court.
Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a 'preconceived narrative' and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing.
'Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,' the bench said.
The bench pointed out that the Chief Justice of India post is not supposed to be a post office only.
'He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), the CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister. If, on the basis of the material, it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious as to call for action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying the CJI has the authority to do so,' Justice Datta said.
He further stated that the 'in-house procedure' was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141.
However, the bench agreed with Sibal's argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure.
The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
Based on the panel's findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.