'Why did you participate in inquiry panel,' SC asks Justice Varma questioning validity of procedure of removal

The apex court asked the counsel as how Justice Varma can question the validity of the in-house inquiry panel after participating in it.

New Delhi: A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma, currently Allahabad High Court judge, if it was not a fact that the in-house inquiry report merely a fact-finding document and not evidence and as to how he was aggrieved with it.

The court pointed out the inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act has broader powers to examine the issue and take evidence under oath. It also pointed out the Supreme Court judgments have upheld the sanctity of the in-house procedure. 

"How can he say that it was flawed," the bench asked as it fixed a writ petition filed by Varma for consideration on Wednesday.

The court asked the counsel as how Justice Varma can question the validity of the in-house inquiry panel after participating in it.

"Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Judges in the past have abstained from attending these proceedings," the bench said.

The court also sought to know from him as to why he did not challenge putting out the video of the cash burning and picture of fire incident and why he waited for the inquiry committee to finalise its report.

Questioning the validity of the procedure in the case, Sibal contended that there was a process for removal of judge under Article 124 of the Constitution and there can't be public debate on it.

He said the video footage as well as other documents were put out on the website on March 22, opening the judge to public debate and discussion. The petitioner stood convicted, the counsel said.

The counsel contended the release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, discussion, and media interaction, accusation against judge, in-house inquiry committee's findings in public were all prohibited under the Constitution.

Sibal also contended the Chief Justice of India recommending removal of the petitioner to the President and the Prime Minister was contrary to constitutional provisions. It was not within the CJI's authority to recommend the removal of a judge. 

He submitted that forwarding the report to the President and the Prime Minister was wrong, as impeachment motion was to be sponsored by the MPs and not the government.

The court, however, pointed out the appointing authority in his case was the President, who acted as per aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, so the in-house inquiry report has to be sent to the President and the Prime Minister.

Sibal also claimed that there was no proven misbehaviour against the judge with regard to discovery of the cash. The court, however, said he did not deny presence of the cash or the fire incident.

The counsel said there was no finding as to the cash belonged to whom.

The court fixed the matter for consideration on Wednesday as it asked the petitioner to bring on record the inquiry panel's report.

In his writ petition, Justices Varma questioned the validity of the in-house procedure, marked by what he claimed as denial of fair hearing and due process. He also raised the issue of absence of formal complaint before the inquiry was initiated by the judges panel. 

The cash haul was allegedly found at the residence of Justice Varma, then Delhi HC judge here during the fire incident on March 14-15, 2025. 

The judge was subsequently transferred to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court. 

On March 22, 2025, the then CJI set up the committee headed by Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, judge of the High Court of Karnataka.

The committee finalised its report on May 3, 2025 indicting him, upon analysing the statements of 55 witnesses, including of Justice Varma and conducting the probe for 10 days. Then CJI Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action as Justice Varma reportedly refused to step down.