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.

During the previous hearing of the matter on July 28, the Court had asked Justice Varma why he appeared before the committee if it was unconstitutional as he is claiming now.

The Court further quizzed him on why he waited for the committee to conclude its probe and submit its report before moving the Supreme Court challenging the committee's legality.

Live updates from the hearing today feature here.

Bench to assemble shortly

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Sidharth Luthra, Rakesh Dwivedi in the front row

It is a jam packed court

Hearing starts

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: Can we hear this matter next week..

Justice Dipankar Datta: No no let us go on

Sibal : I have prepared and placed the points on the constitutional issue before the court

Sibal: The petitioner does not challenge the in-house procedure as a valid mechanism for a fact-finding process provided that process does not lead to initiation of proceedings. The judge does not challenge CJI power to direct not to allocate judicial work to the judge concerned. So what are we challenging. On Article 124 read with judges enquiry act occupies field of removal of judges and surpassing it would create parallel and extra- constitutional mechanism..

Sibal: The in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, if, then it is violative of vires of Article 124.

Sibal: In-house process is limited to recommendation or advice and not power to initiate the proceedings. The in-house process was formulated as part of administrative powers and does not have binding authority. The in-house procedure does not obligate the committee to follow codified rules of evidence.

Sibal : Such an advisory for initiation of proceedings will be the death knell

Justice Datta: So as per Article 124 and Judges enquiry act are the only ones for removing a judge. That's all you say. the in house process has been affirmed by the court in three judgments. It has its origin in Iyer..what relief can we grant if we are with you?

Sibal: Declare the recommendation non est

SC: What happens then? Proceedings will go

SIBAL: That's alright

Justice Datta: That's alright ok. Show me judges protection act

Justice Datta: Read the provision of judges protection act now.

Sr Adv Sibal reads

Justice Datta: Why cannot in house process be included in there ? It is just a recommendation

When you recommend removal..: Sibal

SC: If we say Iyer, Jaising, Dinakaran correctly decided that will be the end of matter. Apart from this position has not been tested elsewhere. Thus SC gets the power to initiate civil or criminal action.

Sibal: Criminal action means sanction for prosecution and make him an accused

Justice Datta: If someone wants to register FIR against judge they have to approach the Supreme Court. This means non-punitive process contemplated by in-house proceeding falls under otherwise of protection act..suppose district judge faces some allegations.. but the committee says it is not criminal.. so what can court do.. how does transfers happen or judicial work is withdrawn.

Justice Datta: You should have assisted us on the Judges Protection Act and it is prima facie ... Law is there. Law is there. We are not pinning you down on why you came so late. This Section 3(2) of the act is the complete answer to your submission

Sibal: on why we didn't come earlier...Tape was released and my reputation was already damaged

Justice Datta: but as per you it is a constitutional issue...is it not and that it is beyond the remit of the judges ? Then you should have approached

Justice Datta: if under law centre is empowered to remove a judge they can. But there is no such law and if they make the law we will test that. Don't come on central government come on sc and HC

Sibal: Sorry you cannot tell me this.. it is an interpretation issue and that is why central govt issue is important.

Justice Datta: How does it apply. There is no law In house procedure is established.

Sibal; I will come prepared on these questions and come tomorrow

Senior Advocate Sibal reads a judgment: It was held self regulation of judiciary is only method which can be tried and adopted.

Justice Datta: 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 thats all.

Sibal: it was to fill the gnawing gap..if you have already made up your mind..

Justice Datta: We would have kept mum and allowed you to argue. Then declare judgment. But that is not fair justice. That is why we are speaking... Ravichandran does not apply since had demitted office. Article 141 is law laid down.. it has to be followed

Justice Datta: When Vishakha was delivered was it not law ? What are you saying ?

Justice Datta: Now let us come to Additional District judge X judgment. We have prepared

Senior Advocate Sibal reads the judgment

Justice Datta: Read further you will come to Justice Khehar's Judgment.

Sibal: Right now..

Justice Datta: Yes, we will lay down and crystallize the law

Sibal slightly smiles

Justice Datta: now laugh at Justice Khehar's Judgment. You could have just said you agree with it. Parliament acts independently. If parliament admits the motion and if any inquiry committee is set up.. you know who can be members of the committee.

Justice Datta: Do not take us to the report. Confine yourself to the constitutional challenge

Sibal: please see the statements by the political parties ..but that we would not have moved the motion of inquiry committee was not probing this

Justice Datta: this is a preliminary report and cannot impact future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports

Sibal: But I cannot assail the committee report there

Justice Datta: 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

Sibal: But it is about my fundamental rights. I can raise the points now.

Justice Datta: 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 points you are raising are major but it could been raised before and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. You don't want something to spill here. Let parliament decide. Why should we decide whether it is your money or not. That was not the remit of the committee

Sibal: In this case there was no complaint. In a full-fledged inquiry after a committee is set up.. then removal takes place. Cross examination etc happens then. In this inquiry there is no such procedure.

Justice Datta: This is a preliminary inquiry and there is no question of cross examination

Sibal: then how can you recommend impeachment?

Justice Datta: So this point should have been raised then That you were denied cross examination

Justice Datta: If CJI thinks this matter should be reported.. he does that. On basis of this report he can transfer or judicial work withdrawn. CJI recommendation is not binding. Parliament has the power to take a call.

Sibal: the letter says there is material to initiate proceedings. That is exactly what the impeachment motion says. He was also given to accept transfer or resign. See here initiated removal

Justice Datta: what was unlawful here? He has exactly stuck to the point and followed the in house procedure.

Sibal: we are challenging the process

Justice Datta: yes that we will decide

Sibal: I know how will you decide. Anyways.

Justice Datta: whether to proceed or not proceed is political decision. But for judiciary message has to sent to society that process has been followed

Sibal: but the procedure has to be just. I will address judges protection act

SC: you should have Sibal: no we can challenge it on Article 21

SC: now after we tell you that you say we will challenge. No challenge will be allowed now Tell us why judges protection act does not apply. It applies because of Article 141..how does it affect article 21

Justice Datta: The law is the procedure and in-house procedure is in place for the last 30 years. We judges know how conduct is regulated. It's not that you act in judicial capacity to strike down law. You strive to uphold it.

Justice Datta: Now Mr Nedumapra how you got inquiry report

Nedumpara: It is with Live Law

Justice Datta: Then we will issue notice to Live Law

.. file an affidavit. Argue now

Justice Datta: come to page 18 of the writ plea.. 5th line. Show us where police did not act on your representation. There is a direct allegation against the police. Show us.

Justice Datta: How should the police act ?

Nedumpara: please let me answer calmly. I am here to answer in a cool way

Justice Datta: in terms of CrPC.. When a cognizable offence is disclosed..

Nedumpara: I know I know..

Justice Datta: let me compete .how do you know. Suppose if you inform police does not.. you can approach magistrate.. .. then you can say that Veeraswami judgment was not followed..where is your police complaint. If you have not approached police don't say all this

Sibal: In the in house procedure judge is always heard

Justice Datta: Heard by whom?

Sibal: The CJI

Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: please see soumitra sen case of Kolkata.. it is stated he was called and was heard

Justice Datta: Call out the next matter. Judgment reserved.

Justice Datta: if you make pleadings without supporting documents you do it at your own risk. You have made false statements Mr Nedumpara

Sr Adv PV Dinesh: Livelaw has not reported it. It is a false statement