The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who challenged the legality of the in-house inquiry related to the recovery of cash from his official residence. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih heard the case and asked Justice Varma’s lawyer, Kapil Sibal, to clarify why his client did not approach the apex court earlier. The bench noted that if the Chief Justice of India finds any credible evidence of judicial misconduct, he can inform the President and the Prime Minister.
Supreme Court Raises Questions on Justice Varma’s Conduct
The Supreme Court raised concerns about Justice Varma’s actions, saying, “Your conduct does not inspire confidence.” The bench questioned why Justice Varma had appeared before the in-house inquiry committee without challenging it at the time. The judges said he should have moved the apex court earlier if he had objections. They added, “Whether to proceed or not is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that due process has been followed.” The court’s remarks focused on ensuring judicial integrity in the inquiry process.
Kapil Sibal Labels Removal Recommendation as ‘Unconstitutional’
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, called the in-house panel’s recommendation for his removal “unconstitutional.” He warned that such actions could set a dangerous precedent. Sibal explained that Justice Varma did not initially contest the inquiry because a tape linked to the case had already been released, severely affecting his public image. The bench also questioned advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who sought the filing of an FIR against Justice Varma. Justice Dipankar Datta asked whether Nedumpara had filed a police complaint before approaching the Supreme Court.
Justice Varma Seeks Quashing of Impeachment Recommendation
Justice Yashwant Varma also sought the quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which called for impeachment proceedings against him. In his petition, Justice Varma said the inquiry had “reversed the burden of proof,” forcing him to prove his innocence. He claimed the panel’s findings followed a “preconceived narrative” and that the timelines compromised procedural fairness. The petition alleged that the committee arrived at adverse conclusions without granting him a full opportunity to defend himself.
Inquiry Panel Found Evidence of Misconduct After Fire Incident
The three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court submitted a report concluding that Justice Varma and his family had either covert or direct control over the store room where burnt cash was recovered. The panel said this proved misconduct serious enough to justify removal. The inquiry lasted 10 days, included examination of 55 witnesses, and involved a visit to Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi, where a fire broke out around 11:35 p.m. on March 14. Justice Varma was then serving on the Delhi High Court and is now at the Allahabad High Court.
CJI Recommends Impeachment to President and Prime Minister
Based on the panel’s findings, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. The Supreme Court has now reserved its decision on both Justice Varma’s challenge to the inquiry and Nedumpara’s plea for registering an FIR. The matter remains pending before the top court.
Swastika Sruti is a Senior Sub Editor at NewsX Digital with 5 years of experience shaping stories that matter. She loves tracking politics- national and global trends, and never misses a chance to dig deeper into policies and developments. Passionate about what’s happening around us, she brings sharp insight and clarity to every piece she works on. When not curating news, she’s busy exploring what’s next in the world of public interest. You can reach her at [swastika.newsx@gmail.com]
