Read 5 key arguments of Justice Yashwant Varma in plea before Supreme Court

Even as the Union government plans to initiate the process to remove Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma from office, the judge has moved the Supreme Court against the findings of the three-judge panel that indicted him over the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence.

In his petition before the top court, Justice Varma has challenged the in-house procedure itself as well as the recommendation of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to remove him as a High Court judge.

The in-house panel comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, had probed the allegations of cash discovery at Justice Varma's residence.

Here are the five grounds the judge has raised before the top court:

1. In-house procedure is extra-constitutional

Justice Varma has argued that the in-house procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 to handle the complaints against judges, unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding.

It creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which give Parliament exclusive powers to remove judges, the plea states.

He has contended that the Judges (Inquiry) Act provides a comprehensive process in this regard with stringent safeguards, as against the in-house procedure that "usurps" Parliamentary authority and violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

2. Supreme Court or CJI has no power of superintendence over judges

Justice Varma has also argued that the Constitution confers no superintendence or disciplinary powers on the Supreme Court or the CJI over High Courts or their judges.

The self-regulating procedures, such as the in-house Procedure, cannot circumvent or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges or imbue the CJI with unregulated authority to act as the arbiter of the fate of other judges, Justice Varma has said.

3. In-house committee probe invalid, violated principles of natural justice

Justice Varma has also contended that the invocation of in-house procedure against him in itself was improper, as there was no formal complaint but only "presumptive queries" based on unsubstantiated allegations that he owned the cash that was discovered and caused the removal of its remnants after the fire.

He has alleged that the three-judge panel failed to notify him of its devised procedure and denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected.

He has also said that the witnesses were examined in his absence and that he was provided with their "paraphrased statements" instead of video recordings.

It has also been argued that the in-house committee failed to collect the relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage. Justice Varma has also argued that since the cash was at the heart of the case, it was important to find out its source and volume. He has contended that the panel failed to answer whose cash it was and how much was discovered.

4. Not given time to review committee's report

It is argued that CJI Khanna did not give Justice Varma sufficient time to review the final report of the committee, before recommending his removal from office.

He has contended that a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior-most judges was required to be given before any advice was rendered based upon the panel report.

CJI asked Justice Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unduly restricted timeline, as per the plea before the top court.

5. Media trial

Justice Varma has also argued that the Supreme Court's unprecedented disclosure of the allegations against him subjected him to a media trial, causing irreparable damage to his reputation and career as a judicial officer. Such public disclosure was disproportionate and violative of the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, he has said.

The media leaks of the final report of the committee and distorted reportage of its findings were left unaddressed and breached the confidentiality of the in-house procedure, as per Justice Varma.