How can you challenge in-house inquiry? SC questions Justice Varma
What's the story
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Justice Yashwant Varma's decision to challenge an in-house inquiry report that indicted him in the case-at-home scandal. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih asked why he waited for the committee's report before challenging its authority. "Did you take a chance of a favorable order there first?" the bench asked. Justice Varma is also seeking a declaration that former Chief Justice of India Khanna's recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional.
Legal proceedings
Impeachment is also a political process, says Justice Datta
Senior Advocate Sibal, representing Justice Varma, argued that only Parliament can remove a judge under Article 124 of the Constitution. Sibal argued that judges' conduct shouldn't be publicly debated until an impeachment motion is moved in Parliament. He said the process has been politicized with media interaction and accusations against Justice Varma. However, Justice Datta pointed out that even impeachment is a political process. The judge also asked why Varma participated in the inquiry if he believed it was unconstitutional.
Judicial protocol
Sibal-Justice Varma's exchange during hearing
Sibal also objected to the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, recommending Varma's removal to the president and prime minister. He said this was against in-house procedure, as only MPs can sponsor impeachment motions. However, Justice Datta disagreed, saying forwarding the report to constitutional authorities was within their purview. The judge clarified that the in-house report is a preliminary finding and not conclusive evidence.
Case adjourned
Controversy and committee report
The bench asked Sibal why he didn't approach the court earlier against the inquiry and publication of videos. The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday, with Sibal directed to submit the committee's report. The controversy began when a large amount of cash was found at Justice Varma's official residence during firefighting on March 14. An in-house committee, constituted by then Chief Justice Khanna, submitted its report in May after examining 55 witnesses and electronic evidence.