Observing that Justice Yashwant Varma’s conduct does not inspire confidence, the Supreme Court on Wednesday posed sharp questions to the judge seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row.
The top court asked Justice Varma why did he appear before the in-house inquiry committee and not challenge it then and there.
It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel’s report.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said if the Chief Justice of India has material to believe that there is misconduct by a judge then he can inform the president and the prime minister.
“Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But judiciary has to send a message to the society that process has been followed,” the bench observed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that the in-house inquiry panel’s recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional.
Sibal told the court that recommendation of proceedings for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent.
Story continues below this ad
He said Justice Varma did not approach earlier as tape was released and his reputation was already damaged.
The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police with a formal complaint before seeking the registration of an FIR.
The top court reserved its order on Justice Varma’s petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the Chief Justice of India’s recommendation for his removal.
Story continues below this ad
It also reserved its order on a separate petition filed by Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR.
Justice Varma has also sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
In his petition, Justice Varma submitted that the inquiry “reversed the burden of proof”, requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.
Alleging that the panel’s findings were based on a preconceived narrative, Justice Varma said the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of “procedural fairness”.
Story continues below this ad
The petition contended that the inquiry panel drew adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing.
A report of the inquiry panel probing the incident had said that Justice Varma and his family members had covert or active control over the store room where a huge cache of half-burnt cash was found following a fire incident, proving his misconduct which is serious enough to seek his removal.
The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.
Acting on the report, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending the judge’s impeachment.
