CJI BR Gavai recuses from hearing plea by Justice Yashwant Varma in Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Wednesday recused from hearing the plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi..The matter was mentioned before CJI by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Justice Varma for urgent listing."This raises some constitutional issues. If it can be listed as early as possible," Sibal said."It will not be possible for me to take up this matter because I was also part of the committee. We will list it," the CJI said.CJI Gavai was possibly referring to his involvement in the process of initiating in-house action against Justice Varma during the tenure of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna..The Central government is reportedly planning to bring an impeachment motion in the Parliament to remove Justice Varma from office.In his plea before the top court, Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the recommendation made by the former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.Justice Varma has challenged the in-house procedure on inquiry into complaints against judges, arguing that it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that "derogates" from the law which exclusively vests the power for removal of High Court judges in the Parliament.He has contended that the In-House procedure does not have the safeguards as provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968..A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters.Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi then and were travelling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out.A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him. The CJI then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up the three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court, where he was recently administered oath of office.However, judicial work of the judge has been temporarily taken away on instructions of the CJI. .Meanwhile, an in-house committee constituted by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna conducted an inquiry into the allegations.The committee comprised of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, probed the allegations of cash discovery at Justice Varma's residence.The committee started the probe on March 25 and finalised its report on May 3. It was then placed before then CJI Khanna on May 4. After the panel indicted the judge, CJI Khanna had forwarded the same to the President and recommended Justice Varma's impeachment..In his plea, Justice Varma has said the invocation of in-house procedure against him was improper and invalid since it was done in absence of any formal complaint. He has also alleged that "unprecedented" public disclosure of the allegations via a press release by the top court had subjected him to media trial.According to his petition, the proceedings before the committee violated natural justice principles since the panel had failed to notify him of its devised procedure and denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence.On the allegation of cash discovery at his residence, he has argued that it was essential to determine who it belonged to and how much was found. The panel report provides no such answers, as per Justice Varma.He has also alleged that CJI Khanna had asked him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline", while warning him of initiating the process for removal..The plea has been filed through advocate Vaibhav Niti.