Supreme Court hears Justice Yashwant Varma petition: LIVE UPDATES

The Supreme Court is hearing the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house committee report indicting 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 is hearing the case.

In his plea before the top court, Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the recommendation made by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.

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.

Varma has moved the top court against the findings in the report and the recommendation of CJI Khanna.

According to Varma's petition, the invocation of in-house procedure against him was improper and invalid since it was done in absence of any formal complaint. He has also alleged that "unprecedented" public disclosure of the allegations via a press release by the top court had subjected him to media trial.

The proceedings before the Committee violated natural justice principles, he has further alleged, arguing that the panel had failed to notify him of its devised procedure and denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence.

On the allegation of cash discovery at his residence, his petition states 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 has also alleged that CJI Khanna had asked him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline" while warning him of initiating the process for removal.

Recently, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai had recused from hearing the plea filed by Justice Varma since he was involved in the process of initiating in-house action against Justice Varma during the tenure of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

Live updates from the hearing today feature here.

Justice Dipankar Datta: This petition should not have been filed like this .. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is the Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned. We don't expect the senior counsel to go through the causetitle.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: Please see Article 124(5). Without following the process this cannot be done. It has been held by the five judges of this court. The constitution bench judgment in judges sub committee also says till such process is followed, judges conduct cannot be discussed anywhere. The tape is released on the first day. Man stands convicted. Questions asked, whose cash is this? Then there are adverse inferences.. 'why did you not object to the transfer..?'

Justice Datta: Where is the report? If you want to argue the report.. it must be on record

Senior Advocate Sibal: We will attach it to the plea

Nedumpara: I have attached.

Justice Datta: I saw that .. but why should I go through it. Mr Sibal should have given. Please furnish that. Now address on point of law that procedure adopted violates the Constitution

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reads Article 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution of India

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal reads cases concerning how judges conduct need not be looked into before the lawful process enquiring the incident begins.

Sibal: State at which bar of Article 121 is lifted, it is then when Parliament can intervene and not before that.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc.. There cannot be a discussion of judges' conduct even in the parliament. If the constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in parliament till such misconduct is proven.. then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on the website, and a public furore consequential thereto.. Media accusations against judges.. findings by the public.. discussing conduct of judges .. All are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the constitution bench Judgment.

SC: But did it say in-house procedure cannot be done?

Sibal: But can that report be in public domain and made politicised?

Justice Datta: Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance on a favourable order there first? You are a constitutional authority. Why did you not do it, and can you not say you did not know this? You should have come then and there and got an order!

Justice Datta: But it does not say that the inquiry committee cannot look into this..

Sibal: But that cannot be the basis of impeachment

Justice Datta: But who said it is?

Sibal: Letter of CJI Khanna

Justice Datta: That you will not get. There was only a press release... We will not look at anything which is not a part of the record. You need to satisfy us based on the petition and the four corners of law

Justice Datta: To whom did the CJI send this letter? The President is the one who appoints the judge. The Prime Minister, because the President acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers. So sending these letters ..how does that mean it is for the house to impeach..?

Sibal: Suppose a judge commits a criminal offence.. FIR.. sanction granted and then go ahead. Suppose being drunk, letter is not written to the President!

Justice Datta: But it is an incidence of misbehaviour

Sibal: But if cash is found in the out house.. the cash belongs to whom?? How can that be attributed to me?

Justice Datta: See your statements...

Justice Datta: Police, FIR, staff all was there and cash was found.

Sibal: None of my staff was there and the staff also said they were not there.

Justice Datta: No, no you have not seen the finding of the committee.. but if you are on law that this inquiry could not have been held

Sibal: But that cannot be the basis of the impeachment

Justice Datta: It is something to say that procedure was transgressed and another thing to say that procedure was followed or not. Sanctity of procedure has been upheld. Recommendations is for initiation of proceedings.

Sibal: If they don't move impeachment motion, what will happen?

Justice Datta: What will happen?? Suppose in a case there are evidences galore. Citizen comes to Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.. no action as per you.. and then citizen comes to the court... Then?

Sibal: Then in-house procedure can be followed..

Justice Datta: Oh, then we come again to the inhouse procedure... And then proceedings begin.. so parliament cannot be directed..

Sibal: No, no

Justice Datta: So you say that committee report not worth it?

Sibal: No, it's not

Justice Datta: Then why challenge ? Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed.. why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past

Sibal: But that cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought committee would find out who the cash belongs to

Justice Datta: Come with one page bullet point next time that these are your pointers. Correct the memo of parties also. Verification is not needed as per SC rules?

Justice Datta: Verification of pleadings.. this I am telling to Mr Nedumpara.. your plea is such that you were present when fire broke out and you found out the currency notes. No reference to paragraph etc.

Justice Datta: I was once appearing before Justice SB Sinha. The plea had facts and law in my favour. It was dismissed because it was added that facts were true to my knowledge, and it was not so as per him.