Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge To In-House Inquiry

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (30 July) reserved its judgment in the case involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who has contested the findings of the in-house inquiry that indicted him in the scandal involving alleged discovery of cash at his Delhi residence.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A G Masih heard arguments on both Justice Varma’s petition and a separate plea by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against the judge.

According to a Livelaw report, senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, contended that the Judges (Inquiry) Act comprehensively governs the removal of judges and thus, an in-house procedure cannot serve as the basis for initiating such removal.

He warned that allowing this would violate Article 124 of the Constitution.

Sibal argued that the CJI’s recommendation carried great persuasive value and risked improperly influencing Parliament.

By making such a recommendation, CJI is interfering with the domain of the Parliament, he said.

Justice Datta, however, reminded the court that the in-house procedure has its roots in landmark judgments like K Veeraswami and Ravichandran Iyer.

Defending the CJI’s responsibility, he remarked, “Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct, CJI has the duty to forward to the President and the Prime Minister.”

He further underlined that the in-house procedure qualifies as law under Article 141.

The bench did agree with Sibal that videos showing currency notes being burnt should never have been leaked.

“We are with you on this. It should not have been leaked,” Justice Datta said, while questioning the impact, “But what turns on it?”

Sibal countered that their presence on the Supreme Court’s website lent them undue credibility, allowing politicians to cite them and prejudicing Justice Varma’s case.

The judges also expressed skepticism about Justice Varma’s timing in challenging the inquiry.

“Your conduct does not inspire confidence...you were waiting for favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here,” Justice Datta said, noting that he had participated fully before objecting to the findings.

The bench stressed that the in-house report was merely a preliminary finding and the CJI’s recommendation an “advice”.

“On the basis of in-house, the CJI can withdraw judicial work but for the Parliament, they may or may not take into consideration. It is not removal,” Justice Datta clarified.

As for Advocate Nedumpara’s petition for FIR against Justice Varma, the bench immediately questioned how he had obtained access to the confidential report and directed him to submit an affidavit disclosing his source.

Also Read: Supreme Court Raps BJP Minister Vijay Shah Over 'Online Apology' To Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, Orders SIT To File Comprehensive Report