Supreme Court dismisses plea by Justice Yashwant Varma against in-house committee report, recommendation for removal

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to impeach him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih also held that in-house committee's constitution and the procedure followed by it for inquiry into the incident was not illegal.

"We have held that CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then. We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future. With this we have dismissed the writ petition," the Court said.

The Bench framed six issues in the matter and held the following

1. Maintainability: It held that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under an in-house mechanism was not maintainable.

2. Legal Procedure: The in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework.

3. Violation of Rights: The Court found no violation of the petitioner’s (Justice Varma's) fundamental rights.

4. Compliance with process: The Chief Justice of India and the inquiry committee “scrupulously followed the process.” The uploading of photographs and videos was deemed non-essential, especially as no objection was raised at the time.

5. Communications to Executive: Sending the report to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional.

6. Liberty: The Court left open the possibility for Justice Varma to raise grievances through appropriate remedies in the future, if required.

In his petition, Justice Varma had sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former CJI Khanna for his removal as a High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.

He also challenged the in-house committee report which had rendered findings against him based on which the CJI had recommended his removal.

According to Justice Varma, the in-house inquiry against him was initiated without any formal complaint and that the Supreme Court’s decision to publicly disclose the allegations through a press release subjected him to an “unprecedented” media trial.

Background

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters. A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him. The CJI then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up a three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court, where he recently was administered the oath of office. However, judicial work of the judge was taken away on the instructions of the CJI. 

Meanwhile, a committee comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, probed the allegations of cash discovery at Justice Varma's residence.

The committee started the probe on March 25 and finalised its report on May 3. It was then placed before then CJI Khanna on May 4.

After the panel indicted the judge, CJI Khanna forwarded the same to the President and recommended Justice Varma's removal.

Justice Varma then moved the top court with the present petition against the findings in the report and the recommendation of CJI Khanna.

According to the plea, the invocation of the in-house procedure against him was improper and invalid since it was done in the absence of any formal complaint.

The proceedings before the Committee violated natural justice principles since the panel failed to notify him of its devised procedure and denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence, his plea said.

On the discovery of cash at his residence, the plea said that it was essential to determine who it belonged to and how much was found. The panel report provides no such answers, as per Justice Varma.

He also alleged that CJI Khanna had asked him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline".

Arguments

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, had said that the in-house mechanism is only limited to making a recommendation and it cannot be the ground to trigger impeachment proceedings against a judge.

The recommendations by the in-house committee does not have binding value, he had underlined.

Thus, Sibal had said that he was not per se challenging the in-house committee report; rather he was against the same being a trigger for removal proceedings against the judge, since that will be in violation of Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.

The Court during the hearing said that the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the office of the Chief Justice of India cannot be considered as a mere post office.

"In-house process was placed in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. Chief justice is not a post office and he also has some duties towards the nation. If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct he can inform that and that he has informed the President and Prime Minister that is all," said Justice Datta.

The Bench also repeatedly questioned the delay by Justice Varma in approaching the Court against the committee.

"If you challenge the constitutionality of the provisions you should have come early...you say you are not heard and then there is delay. Whatever observations you are getting now, you could have got then," Justice Datta remarked.

"But it is about my fundamental rights. I can raise the points now," Sibal argued.

"You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only parliament can do it you should have come then and there," the Bench remarked.

Sibal also highlighted the deficiencies in the in-house committee's probe including lack of cross-examination.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also appearing for Justice Varma, highlighted the case of impeachment process of former Supreme Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen.

"Please see Soumitra Sen case of Kolkata. It is stated he was called and was heard," Rohatgi said.

[Read Live Coverage]