Why did you appear before in-house Committee if it was unconstitutional? Supreme Court quizzes Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma on his decision to challenge the legality of the three-member judicial committee which had arrived at findings against him in connection with the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi..A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih asked Justice Varma why he waited for the committee to conclude its probe and submit its report before moving the Supreme Court challenging the committee's legality.."Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," Justice Datta demanded."But that cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought committee would find out who the cash belongs to," Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for Justice Varma, replied..Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed? Why did you wait?Supreme Court.The Court was hearing Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi..In his petition, Justice Varma has also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.He has alleged that 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..Background.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. 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 a 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 recently was administered the oath of office. However, judicial work of the judge was taken away on the instructions of the CJI. Meanwhile, a committee comprising 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 forwarded the same to the President and recommended Justice Varma's removal.Varma has moved the top court against the findings in the report and the recommendation of CJI Khanna.According to Varma's petition, 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.The proceedings before the Committee violated natural justice principles, he has further alleged, arguing that 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, his petition states 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..Hearing today.During the hearing today, the Bench said that there are shortcomings in the petition."This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is supreme court as your grievance is against the process mentioned. We don't expect the senior counsel to go through the causetitle," the Bench said. "Please see Article 124(5). Without following the process this cannot be done. It has been held by the five judges of this court. The constitution bench judgment in judges sub committee also says till such process is followed judges conduct cannot be discussed anywhere. The tape is released on first day. Man stands convicted. Questions asked whose cash is this? Then there are adverse inferences.. why did you not object to the transfer," Sibal submitted.The Court then pointe out that the report of the committee which has been challenged has not been placed on record before the Court."Where is the report? If you want to argue the report, it must be on record," Justice Datta said."We will attach it to the plea," Sibal replied.The Court then asked the Senior Counsel to explain how the procedure adopted against Justice Varma would be in violation of the Constitution.Sibal contended that a judge's conduct cannot be examined except through a process laid down in law. "The Constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc, there cannot be a discussion of judges conduct even in the parliament. If the Constitutional scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in parliament till such misconduct is proven, then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto, media accusations against judges, findings by the public, discussing conduct of judges are all prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that then it is violative of the constitution bench Judgment," Sibal said.."But did it (judgment) say in house procedure cannot be done," the Bench asked."But can that report be in public domain and made polticised?" Sibal responded. The Bench then asked why Justice Varma appeared before the committee and why he did not object to the committee at that point."Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first. You are a constitutional authority. Why did you not do it and you cannot say you did not know this! You should have come then and there and got an order," the Court said..Sibal maintained that the inquiry committee report cannot form the basis for the impeachment motion."But who said it is," Justice Datta asked. "Letter of CJI Khanna," Sibal answered."There was only a press release. We will not look at anything which is not a part of the record. You need to satisfy us based on the petition and the four corners of law. Whom did CJI sent this letter to? president is the one who appoints the judge. The prime minister because the president acts on aid and advice of council of ministers. So sending these letters, how does that mean it is for the house to impeach," the Bench asked.."Suppose judge commits a criminal offence.. FIR.. sanction granted and then go ahead. Like for suppose being drunk letters not written to the president," Sibal contended."But it is an incident of misbehaviour," Justice Datta opined."But if cash is found in the outhouse, the cash belongs to whom? How can that be attributed to me?" Sibal demanded. "See your statements...Police, FIR, staff all was there and cash was found," the Bench said. "None of my staff was there and the staff also said they were not there," Sibal replied."No no you have not seen the finding of the committee.. but if you are on law that this inquiry could not have been held.." the Bench stated."But that cannot be the basis of the impeachment," Sibal maintained."It is something to say that procedure was transgressed and another thing to say that procedure was followed or not. Sanctity of procedure has been upheld. Recommendations is for initiation of proceedings," the Bench said.It persisted with the line of questioning on why Justice Varma did not challenge the committee when it was constituted..The Bench eventually deferred the hearing in the matter for July 30."Come with one page bullet point next time that these are your pointers. Correct the memo of parties also," the Court directed Justice Varma..[Read Live Coverage]