Your conduct does not inspire confidence: Supreme Court reserves judgment in Justice Yashwant Varma case

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..BackgroundA 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.Justice Varma then moved the top court with the present petition against the findings in the report and the recommendation of CJI Khanna..According to the plea, the invocation of the in-house procedure against him was improper and invalid since it was done in the absence of any formal complaint.The proceedings before the Committee violated natural justice principles since the panel failed to notify him of its devised procedure and denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence, his plea said.On the discovery of cash at his residence, the plea said 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 also alleged that CJI Khanna had asked him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline"..Hearing todayDuring 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 Bench then examined Judges Protection Act, 1985, specifically Section 3(2), which deals with the investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge by a committee."You should have assisted us on the Judges Protection Act and it is prima facie. Law is there. We are not pinning you down on why you came so late. This Section 3(2) of the Act is the complete answer to your submission," the Bench said."On why we didn't come earlier...Tape was released and my reputation was already damaged," Sibal said."But as per you it is a constitutional issue, is it not? And that it is beyond the remit of the judges? Then you should have approached (the Court). If under law, Centre is empowered to remove a judge, they can. But there is no such law and if they make the law we will test that," the Court"Sorry you cannot tell me this...it is an interpretation issue and that is why Central government issue is important," Sibal replied."How does it apply. There is no law. In-house procedure is established," the Bench said.Sibal then said that he will come prepared and answer the query on this aspect tomorrow..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. "In-house process was placed in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. Chief justice is not a post office and he also has some duties towards the nation. If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct he can inform that and that he has informed the President and Prime Minister that is all," said Justice Datta. "It was to fill the gnawing gap...if you have already made up your mind..." Sibal said."We would have kept mum and allowed you to argue. Then declare judgment. But that is not fair justice. That is why we are speaking...Article 141 is law laid down. It has to be followed. When Vishakha was delivered, was it not law?" the Bench further demanded..Your conduct does not inspire confidence.Supreme Court.The Bench asked Sibal to confine his arguments to Constitutional aspects rather than the merits of the in-house committee report."Do not take us to the report. Confine yourself to the constitutional challenge," Justice Datta said. "Please see the statements by the political parties," Sibal said."This (in-house committee report) is a preliminary report and cannot impact future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports," Justice Datta stated."But I cannot assail the committee report there (in Parliament)," Sibal replied.The Bench repeatedly questioned the delay by Justice Varma in approaching the Court against the committee."If you challenge the constitutionality of the provisions you should have come early...you say you are not heard and then there is delay. Whatever observations you are getting now, you could have got then," Justice Datta remarked. "But it is about my fundamental rights. I can raise the points now," Sibal argued. "You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only parliament can do it you should have come then and there," the Bench remarked.Sibal highlighted the deficiencies in the in-house committee's probe including lack of cross-examination."In this case, there was no complaint. In a full-fledged inquiry after a committee is set up...then removal takes place. Cross examination etc happens then. In this inquiry there is no such procedure," he said."This is a preliminary inquiry and there is no question of cross-examination," the Bench responded. "Then how can you recommend impeachment?" Sibal asked. "So this point should have been raised then. That you were denied cross-examination," Justice Datta shot back.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also appearing for Justice Varma, highlighted the case of impeachment process of former Supreme Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen."Please see Soumitra Sen case of Kolkata. It is stated he was called and was heard," Rohatgi said."We will consider," the Bench said while reserving its verdict..[Read Live Coverage]