Supreme Court Rejects Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against In-House Inquiry Report

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. The plea challenged the findings of a three-judge in-house inquiry committee and the recommendation of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

The case stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi during his tenure as a judge of the Delhi High Court. Fire tenders allegedly discovered unaccounted cash at the premises. Justice Varma was not present at the residence at the time of the incident.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Justice Varma’s petition, argued by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, claimed that he had not been provided a fair opportunity to respond to the in-house inquiry committee before it submitted its findings.

The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, questioned why Justice Varma had appeared before the in-house panel if he believed the process was unconstitutional. The court also noted that he had raised objections only after the inquiry concluded, which undermined the credibility of his petition.

The bench referenced past instances where judges abstained from appearing before inquiry panels if they doubted their legality, suggesting that Justice Varma should have approached the Supreme Court earlier.

Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal

In its 57-page judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that Justice Varma’s decision to challenge the process only after its conclusion did not inspire confidence. The bench stated that if procedural flaws existed, they should have been raised before or during the inquiry, not afterward.

The court further rejected Justice Varma’s argument that the in-house procedure lacked legal sanctity. Citing Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and Article 141 of the Constitution, the bench held that the procedure had the necessary legal backing. The term “otherwise” in the Act, the court noted, was broad enough to cover in-house inquiries.

Parliament’s Role in Removal Proceedings

The Supreme Court clarified that a panel report recommending removal of a judge, even when accepted by the CJI and forwarded to the President and Prime Minister, does not automatically trigger removal under constitutional provisions. Parliament retains full authority to decide whether to proceed with impeachment.

The court emphasized that Parliament’s power to initiate removal proceedings remains unaffected by the in-house procedure. Even in the absence of a report or recommendation, Parliament can initiate action based on other valid reasons.

Examination of Procedural Deviations

Justice Varma had also alleged procedural deviations by the CJI. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no deviations, except for the publication of photographs and video footage of the incident on its website. The court acknowledged that this step was not provided under the procedure but concluded that it did not significantly impact the case, as Justice Varma did not object to it when it occurred.

Current Status and Next Steps

With the Supreme Court closing the matter, the impeachment process now lies entirely within Parliament’s domain. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has confirmed that the motion to remove Justice Varma will first be introduced in the Lok Sabha and then in the Rajya Sabha. Rijiju stressed that the decision should be a collective one, supported by all political parties, as it involves the integrity of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores both the legal validity of the in-house inquiry mechanism and the ultimate authority of Parliament in the removal of judges. Justice Varma, as stated by the bench, may exercise his rights under the law if and when the parliamentary process reaches an appropriate stage.

---