30-Jul-2025 02:06 PM
5484
New Delhi, Jul 30 (Reporter) The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment in a plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for his removal over the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih heard extensive arguments during the day-long hearing.
The Court repeatedly questioned the delay in Justice Varma's petition, expressing concern over his conduct, which the Bench said “does not inspire confidence.”
It hinted that the matter may be left to Parliament, given that the removal process of a judge lies within its domain.
“Why should we decide whether it is your money or not? That was not the remit of the in-house committee. Let Parliament decide,” the Bench remarked, pointing to Justice Varma’s delay in approaching the Court after the in-house committee submitted its report.
Justice Varma’s petition seeks to quash the report of the in-house inquiry committee, which found him culpable, and to declare CJI Khanna’s recommendation for his removal as unconstitutional and beyond jurisdiction.
He contended that the inquiry lacked a formal complaint and failed to follow principles of natural justice.
He also criticized the public disclosure of allegations by the Supreme Court via a press release, calling it a trigger for media trial.
The controversy began on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi.
Firefighters allegedly recovered large amounts of unaccounted cash, and a video surfaced showing bundles of currency engulfed in flames.
Justice Varma denied the corruption allegations, terming it a conspiracy to frame him.
Following the incident, an in-house committee comprising Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman was formed by CJI Khanna on March 22.
The committee submitted its report on May 3, which was forwarded to the President of India the next day with a recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal.
Meanwhile, judicial work was withdrawn from Justice Varma, though he was administered the oath of office upon return to the Allahabad High Court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house procedure cannot be used as a basis for impeachment, as it lacks binding legal authority.
He emphasized that only Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, can be invoked for the removal of a judge.
“The in-house mechanism is limited to recommendations or advice. It cannot trigger impeachment proceedings,” Sibal submitted.
The Bench, however, questioned why these constitutional challenges were not raised earlier. Justice Datta emphasized that the Chief Justice of India is not a “mere post office” and that the in-house process, formulated in 1999, empowers the CJI to act upon credible allegations.
The Bench asked Kapil Sibal to restrict his arguments to constitutional questions, rather than delve into the merits of the committee’s findings.
Sibal further pointed out that the inquiry lacked due process there was no cross-examination, no formal complaint, and no disclosure of evidence procedures. He claimed that the report was used to force Justice Varma into resigning within an "unduly restricted timeline."
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing Justice Varma, cited the precedent of Justice Soumitra Sen’s impeachment proceedings to emphasize the importance of procedural safeguards.
The Court, however, underlined that the current in-house committee report was only preliminary and not the final basis for removal, reiterating that it was for Parliament to decide the judge’s fate.
“You have to show that there was a violation of procedure by the CJI. If you believe Parliament alone can decide, then you should have come to Court earlier,” the Bench remarked.
After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its verdict in the matter...////...