'CJI not a Post Office, has duty to act on misconduct': SC reserves verdict in Justice Yashwant Varma case
The Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, has challenged the in-house inquiry report indicting him in the infamous cash-at-residence controversy, as well as the recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister seeking his removal.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih, after a detailed hearing, reserved the matter for judgment. The Court also took up a separate petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma in connection with the incident.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, presented the core of the constitutional challenge. He contended that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 fully governs the procedure for the removal of a judge, and that the in-house inquiry mechanism, being an administrative process, could not trigger or influence impeachment proceedings under Article 124 of the Constitution.
Sibal argued that the recommendation of the CJI for removal, if based solely on such a report, would carry undue weight in Parliament due to the high constitutional position of the CJI, thereby compromising the independence of the legislature's decision-making process.
Justice Datta, however, countered that the in-house mechanism had legal grounding in Supreme Court precedents such as K. Veeraswami and Ravichandran Iyer, and that it was recognized as valid law under Article 141.
He clarified that the clause 'otherwise' in Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act allowed for in-house proceedings and administrative steps such as withdrawal of judicial work from a judge.
'The Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has responsibilities as the leader of the judiciary. If he receives credible information regarding misconduct, he must act and inform the President and Prime Minister,' Justice Datta remarked.
The Bench repeatedly asked why Justice Varma had not challenged the in-house procedure earlier. Justice Datta pointedly said:'Your conduct does not inspire confidence. You participated in the inquiry and approached the Court only after the findings went against you.'
The Court agreed with Sibal's concern regarding the leak of video footage showing bundles of burning cash during the March 14 fire incident at Justice Varma's Delhi residence.
'We are with you on this. It should not have been leaked,' Justice Datta said, though he added, 'But what turns on it?'
Sibal maintained that such footage being uploaded on the Supreme Court's website lent it undue credibility, leading to political commentary and a media narrative that prejudiced his client's position.
Justice Datta noted that Justice Varma never sought judicial redress over the leak or asked for the videos to be removed from public domain.
The Court emphasized that the in-house report was merely a preliminary fact-finding exercise, not equivalent to a full-fledged inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
The recommendation of the CJI to the President, the Court said, was advisory in nature.
'The CJI's report can lead to withdrawal of judicial work, but Parliament is not bound to act on it. It is only an advice. Someone advising and someone initiating removal are two different things,' Justice Datta explained.
Sibal stressed that since the in-house process lacked cross-examination, codified rules of evidence, and procedural safeguards, it could not form the basis of initiating impeachment proceedings.
Justice Varma is under scrutiny following a fire on March 14 at his official residence in Delhi, during which firefighters allegedly discovered a large stash of currency notes. A video of cash burning was circulated, creating a public uproar.
Following this, CJI Khanna formed a three-judge in-house inquiry panel comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka).
The committee examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter, and evaluated digital evidence.
The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family had control over the location where cash was found. Since no satisfactory explanation was given beyond blanket denials and claims of conspiracy, the committee recommended action. Judicial work was withdrawn, and Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court.
CJI Khanna forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister in May after Justice Varma refused to resign.
Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, in a separate petition, sought registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. The Court, however, questioned him on how he accessed the confidential report and directed him to file an affidavit disclosing his source.
The Bench noted that Nedumpara had not even approached the police before moving the writ petition.
'You can't come straight to us without filing a complaint before the police. If police don't act, you can approach the Magistrate. But you haven't done any of this,' Justice Datta told him.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Rakesh Dwivedi were also present to argue for Justice Varma, but the Bench declined to hear more than one senior counsel per party.
Justice Datta reiterated that the petitioner's grievance stemmed from a process that was only a preliminary inquiry. Since no official action of removal had yet taken place, the petition was premature in challenging the CJI's recommendation.
'The in-house process is not a removal. Parliament is not bound by it. And when the report is not even treated as evidence, how can the petitioner be aggrieved?' the Bench asked.
After completing the hearings from both sides, the Bench reserved its judgment on the matter.
Last week, Members of Parliament in both the Houses initiated circulation of an impeachment notice against Justice Varma with the requisite signatures, following the in-House report and the controversy.
Today the Members of Parliament in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha formally initiated the impeachment process against the Allahabad High Court judge.
UNI SNG AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Vandalism and cop injuries to be police evidence in high court
1 2 3 4 5 6 Kolkata: Cops in Kolkata and Howrah have registered nine FIRs across three police stations against those who attended the 'Nabanna Abhijan' on Saturday. They are accused of attacking cops, damaging public and private property, and indulging in violence and arson. Also, the organisers have been accused of violating the court order. Most cases have been drawn up under sections 189(2) (unlawful assembly), 191(3) (force or violence used by an unlawful assembly), 121(1) (voluntarily causing hurt), 132 (criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty), 109 (attempt to murder), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the BNS Act, 3 PDPP Act, and 9 WB MPPO Act. Those involved in the assault near J L Nehru Road might soon face organised crime charges, sources said. In Kolkata, six FIRs were lodged at New Market police station and one at Hare Street police station. While cops didn't specify if any names were mentioned in the FIRs, BJP claimed names of their functionaries like Ashok Dinda, Agnimitra Paul and Kaustuv Bagchi — who were seen at the J L Nehru Road flashpoint — were named in the suo motu complaints by police. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata "Those who were present there on Saturday, those who disobeyed the Honourable High Court's orders, those who assaulted the police, those who threatened the police, and those who damaged govt and private property are being identified, and their names will certainly be included in the FIR," said Kolkata Police commissioner Manoj Varma on Sunday. Varma was at the hospital to check on police constable Prasanta Poddar (36) — the security guard of DC SSD Bidhisha Kalita. Poddar was among the three policemen admitted to the hospital after they sustained injuries at the hands of the vandals on Saturday. "He sustained head injuries but is otherwise stable," said Varma. Earlier on Friday, Lalbazar issued a photograph of Poddar being pinned to the ground by a protester while another protester was seen stomping his head. Sometime later, he was seen being rescued and escorted away by policemen while he was bleeding from his head. In total, five policemen were injured. Apart from Poddar, two others — ASI Jagabandhu Saha (58) and home guard Chaitanya Mahanta (30) — were also admitted to the trauma care centre of the hospital. Two other policemen — constable Nimai Mondal (44) of Tollygunge traffic guard and constable Mithun Ghosh (38) of Shakespeare Sarani police station — were discharged after preliminary treatment from the hospital. Ahead of the 'Nabanna Abhijan', police warned of strict action if Calcutta High Court's orders were disobeyed. Saturday saw a day-long chaos. City cops have filed seven FIRs but are yet to make any arrest. On Friday, Calcutta High Court reiterated that the protesters will ensure a peaceful protest and that the police will maintain the law-and-order situation. Various trader groups of Howrah Maidan, MG Road, Brabourne Road, and CR Avenue moved the HC, anticipating disruptions due to the march, considering last year's experience when the protest took an ugly turn and about 47 police personnel were injured and one lost his eyes. When asked about leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari abusing Varma publicly, the police commissioner avoided the issue, saying, "The matter is under investigation, and at this moment, it would be inappropriate to comment." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Judiciary, legislature, executive united for speedy, affordable justice: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai said on Sunday that the judiciary, legislature, and executive are committed to serve the people and ensure speedy justice with least cost and efforts. Inaugurating the newly-constructed court building of Gauhati High Court , Itanagar permanent bench here, the CJI said, "The sole object of the judiciary, legislature, and executive is to serve the people. We all exist to give speedy and due justice to the people," Gavai said, and praised successive Chief Justices of the Gauhati High Court for making justice more accessible to the people. He said that despite facing several crises over the past 75 years after Independence, the nation has remained strong, united, and is on the path to becoming a developed country. Highlighting Arunachal Pradesh 's unity in diversity, CJI Gavai added that the Northeastern state has 26 major tribes and over 100 sub-tribes. The government has taken all-out efforts to preserve, protect and promote the traditional culture and customs of each tribe, he said. Progress of the country and protection and preservation of culture and traditions can go simultaneously for further strengthening the country, he said, adding that the Constitution also envisaged and emphasised to preserve and conserve the culture of all people and community. Gavai said: "During our recent visit to Manipur, a woman there told me, 'You are welcome to your home'. It touched all of us, reminding us that India is one, and for all Indians, India is the home for all." The Chief Justice also said that the Northeast region is one of the most important parts of India, and informed that the Constitution provides special provisions to preserve and safeguard the tribal communities of the region. Referring to B.R. Ambedkar, the CJI added that Ambedkar always fought for the unity of India and he always said, 'India first and India last'. Ambedkar for all time told the people that the Constitution would keep India united and strong in times of peace and war and that was experienced even after 75 years, CJI Gavai said. "Each religion has its own 'dharma granth' (religious scripture), but for every Indian, the Constitution is the great 'granth'. Our foremost loyalty should be to the Constitution. Everyone must read the constitution," the CJI said. Speaking at the event, Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu said the inauguration of the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench building marks a major landmark in strengthening the state's justice delivery system, promising faster and more efficient access to justice to the people. "Until 2016, Arunachal Pradesh had only two courts and currently the state now has 33 functional district and session courts and the state Cabinet recently approved eight more courts along with 463 new posts created for the district level judiciary," the Chief Minister added. Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju advocated to further strengthen the judicial infrastructure, especially in the lower judiciary to ensure the swift, and people-friendly justice accessible to all. Highlighting the reforms of the Union government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Minister Rijiju told that more than 1,500 redundant and obsolete laws, framed during the British period, have been abolished as they created unnecessary problems for common people and the governments.
