no-support-in-varma-matter-till-inquiry-on-yadav-begins-sibal

The opposition cannot favour any action by the government to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma until an inquiry is established under impeachment proceedings against Justice Shekhar Yadav for his "communal" statements, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said on Saturday.

In an interview, Sibal argued that the case of Varma, who is involved in a controversy after burnt wads of money were found at his house after a fire at his residence, was not a case of corruption and thus the parties believing that they need to help do something against the judge since it's a matter of graft must reconsider.

The Independent Rajya Sabha MP alleged that there may be two reasons of the government in proceeding with introducing an impeachment motion against Varma — they are aggrieved with him as he is "one of the most independent High Court judges" and at other times they may be believing that it is a "great opportunity to put pressure on the courts" and attempt to introduce another type of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

"I believe the institution has wide enough shoulders to bear such actions of the government," he said.

Asked if the case falls through would he be willing to defend Varma in Parliament during the course of impeachment proceedings, Sibal, another senior advocate, said, "This is academic, first the judge has to invite me." Sibal made the comments as the government initiated the exercise of obtaining signatures of MPs in order to bring a motion in Parliament to oust Justice Varma.

 

Also read: 'SC report on Justice Varma case has no constitutional relevance'

Sources have added that signatures of numerous MPs of the Lok Sabha have been gathered for the exercise of impeachment, which is a sign that the motion will be moved in the Lower House.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that a motion to impeach Varma will be moved in Parliament's next session beginning July 21. Scorning the government for going ahead with collecting signatures, Sibal claimed, "First of all, what business does the government have to do with this? Under the Constitution, either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha can bring a motion for impeachment. The Constitutional process dehors the government." The government being in the process of gathering signatures indicates that it is interested as a body to initiate the motion and impeach him, while the Constitutional process dehors the government, he stated.

"I am surprised, I must say, but that is the way things happen when there are governments seeking to move impeachment motions. Clearly, they do not desire the judge for reasons best known to them," Sibal informed the media.

Sibal, when questioned about what would be his message to opposition parties, replied this is not a matter of parties whatsoever and even the government is making a mistake in moving through by obtaining signatures.

"It has nothing to do with the government, it has nothing to do with opposition parties. It is something to do with members of Parliament. If the opposition parties issue a diktat, fifty MPs will sign. And if a government issues a diktat, a hundred will sign. But the question is, this itself is constitutionally impermissible," he argued.

Sibal said the opposition should get together and say what he has been saying -- "before an MP appends his signatures on the motion, there should be an investigation".

And since the judge is from the higher judiciary and there is a specific constitutional process of impeachment, it is the Supreme Court which must actually initiate the process and file an FIR for determining who placed the money there, he said.

He further added that the opposition will initially request the establishment of an inquiry against Justice Yadav on impeachment proceedings following the notice filed by the opposition in December 2024 in the Rajya Sabha to introduce an impeachment motion against him for reportedly making "communal comments" last year at a VHP event.

"Otherwise, it appears that this (action against Justice Varma) is being selectively taken by the government and the BJP is targeting this judge and shielding the other judge. That is ought to be the proper position of the opposition parties," Sibal stated.

"I believe, opposition leaders must adopt a stance that no issue of us supporting this motion until such time as the inquiry (against Yadav) is done or you (at least) establish the inquiry against Justice Yadav," Sibal added.

The ex-law minister claimed that the government is shielding Justice Yadav because what he said was "ideologically in tune" with the government.

He asserted that two different approaches are being adopted in the case of Justice Varma and Justice Yadav.

The motion for moving an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav was submitted on December 13, 2024, and even today it is July 2025 but the verification has not yet been conducted, he added.

"Clearly, the government doesn't want to go fast. Clearly, it wants to save the judge. But on the other side the minister for parliamentary affairs (Kiren Rijiju) has stated that in Justice Varma's case 'we are going to move the motion…and when the judges inquiry committee is formed they must complete the work within three months time because this cannot wait', " Sibal said.

Venturing into Justice Varma's case, he confirmed that it is a very unusual case but it is "not a case of corruption".

"I believe some political parties are thinking that since it's a case of corruption, therefore, we must support...," he said.

"It is between 11:59 PM and 12:11 AM that some videos were shot and there was police presence there. The police officials as well as the fire services staff were present at the location until 1:56 AM (March 15). Between 12:11 AM and 1:56 AM, we have no notion as to what happened to the cash." The police might have also filed an FIR against unknown individuals because they had no information as to who left the cash there, Sibal added.

"They should have taken some money and if you received some notes that were intact and not charred, the police might have traced which bank it belonged to, when it was seized, what is the origin of it, some inquiry would have been conducted," he stated.

Sibal asserted that the Delhi police "utterly failed" to perform its duty. "The fire services department don't perform their duty, the Delhi police don't perform their duty the committee doesn't perform its duty in discovering as how that money was deposited there and the whole load is left to the judge who says 'the money does not belong to me and I did not know how it came there'.".

"So how do you impeach a motion against this evidence," Sibal asked. He added that the Supreme Court committee's report has no constitutional significance as it falls within an in-house process.