The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in the petition filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to impeach him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi.
During the hearing today, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih observed that Justice Varma's conduct did not inspire confidence since he chose to move the Court belatedly after an in-house committee constituted by the CJI arrived at adverse findings against him.The Court also hinted that it might refrain from interfering in the matter since the removal of the judge is currently being considered by Parliament.
"The points you are raising are major, but could been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. You don't want something to spill here. Let Parliament decide. Why should we decide whether it is your money or not? That was not the remit of the in-house committee," the Bench remarked. It was referring to Justice Varma's stance that the in-house committee did not conduct a thorough probe into the source of the money allegedly recovered from the residence of the judge.
In his petition, Justice Varma also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former CJI Khanna for his removal as a High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.According to Justice Varma, the in-house inquiry against him was initiated without any formal complaint and that the Supreme Court’s decision to publicly disclose the allegations through a press release subjected him to an “unprecedented” media trial.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, said that the in-house mechanism is only limited to making a recommendation and it cannot be the ground to trigger impeachment proceedings against a judge.The recommendations by the in-house committee does not have binding value, he underlined."In-house process is limited to recommendation or advice and not power to initiate the proceedings. The in-house process was formulated as part of administrative powers and does not have binding authority. The in-house procedure does not obligate the committee to follow codified rules of evidence," Sibal contended.
Thus, Sibal said that he was not per se challenging the in-house committee report; rather he is against the same being a trigger for removal proceedings against the judge, since that will be in violation of Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968."So, Article 124 and Judges Inquiry Act are the only ones for removing a judge. That's all you say. The in-house process has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in three judgments. What relief can we grant if we are with you?" the Bench asked.
"Declare the recommendation (to remove Justice Varma) non est," Sibal replied.
The Court said that the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the office of the Chief Justice of India cannot be considered as a mere post office."It was to fill the gnawing gap...if you have already made up your mind..." Sibal said.The Bench asked Sibal to confine his arguments to Constitutional aspects rather than the merits of the in-house committee report. The Bench repeatedly questioned the delay by Justice Varma in approaching the Court against the committee.Sibal highlighted the deficiencies in the in-house committee's probe including lack of cross-examination.
Follow us
