In a matter closely watched by legal and constitutional experts, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict in the case concerning Justice Yashwant Varma, addressing the interplay between internal judicial inquiries and Parliament's powers to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Background of the Case

The controversy began after partially burnt and unaccounted cash was recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. Following this shocking incident, the Supreme Court constituted a three-judge in-house inquiry committee. After completion of the inquiry, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna forwarded a recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma to the President and the Prime Minister.

Kapil Sibal Challenges CJI’s Authority

Appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mounted a strong challenge against the procedural legitimacy of the internal inquiry. Sibal argued that the Chief Justice of India does not hold the authority to recommend impeachment. According to him, only Parliament is empowered under the Constitution to initiate and act upon a judge’s removal process.

Sibal clarified that Justice Varma was not contesting the inquiry itself but rather the recommendation for removal issued by the CJI, which he believes lacks constitutional backing.

Supreme Court’s Observations: Parliament Stands Autonomous

The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, made key observations that clarified the legal architecture surrounding judicial impeachment. It stated unequivocally that even if lapses occurred in the in-house procedure, it would not restrict Parliament from acting independently.

"Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench remarked.

Justice Datta emphasized that the in-house report merely constitutes a recommendation, not a binding directive. It does not preclude Parliament from applying its own discretion or conducting its own investigation under Article 124(4) or Article 217 of the Constitution.

Contentious Video Release: Breach of Judicial Restraint?

One of the more controversial elements of the hearing came when Sibal objected to the Supreme Court’s decision to upload video footage of the cash recovery on its official website. Sibal argued that releasing such sensitive material before any parliamentary action amounts to reputational damage and violates procedural fairness.

"The tape was released – my reputation is already gone. What would I come to court for?" Sibal lamented.

However, the Court dismissed this contention, stating that Members of Parliament tasked with the inquiry would not be swayed by what’s publicly available and emphasized that the video cannot impact the constitutional process of impeachment.

Implications of the Verdict

While the judgment is still pending, the Court’s observations signal two key takeaways:

1. The in-house judicial mechanism is a preliminary process — it serves to assess the merits of allegations but does not override constitutional processes.

2. Parliament retains full autonomy — any action against a judge, including removal from office, must originate and conclude through legislative procedure, independent of judicial recommendations.

Final Observations from the Bench

Justice Datta concluded that the in-house report was a “preliminary” assessment and should not be treated as conclusive by either the judiciary or Parliament. The bench underscored that the principle of checks and balances remains intact, and the ultimate decision lies with the Parliament of India.

The Supreme Court has now reserved its verdict, and all eyes are on what will become a landmark ruling on the constitutional boundaries of judicial oversight and parliamentary sovereignty.

---