'CJI not…post office': SC reserves judgment in Justice Varma case
What's the story
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a petition filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma. Varma is challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal, as well as the recommendation by then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, to impeach him. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih heard the case and observed that Varma's conduct didn't inspire confidence as he approached the court after an in-house committee found him guilty.
Judicial scrutiny
Your conduct doesn't inspire confidence, says court
The court questioned Varma's delay in approaching the court and his conduct, saying, "Your conduct does not inspire confidence...You don't want something to spill here." The bench also hinted at not intervening, saying, "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. The bench was referring to Justice Varma's argument that the in-house committee didn't investigate where the money came from.
Legal arguments
In-house mechanism only for recommendations, shouldn't trigger impeachment proceedings
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, argued that the in-house mechanism is only for recommendations. He contended that Article 124 and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 are the only grounds for removing a judge. The bench then examined Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which deals with investigating judges' misbehavior or incapacity by a committee. After that, Justice Datta said that the clause allowed the initiation of in-house procedure and withdrawal of judicial work from a judge.
In-house process
Court asks Sibal to focus on constitutional aspects
The court stressed that the in-house process was established in 1999 and the CJI has responsibilities beyond being a "post office." "He (CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct, CJI has the duty to forward to the President and the Prime Minister," Justice Datta said. The bench asked Sibal to focus on constitutional aspects instead of the merits of the committee report.
Legal challenge
Varma's petition calls for CJI Khanna's impeachment recommendation quashed
Justice Varma's petition argues that the in-house inquiry was initiated without a formal complaint and the Supreme Court's press release subjected him to an "unprecedented" media trial. He has also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former CJI Khanna for his removal as high court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires. The case stems from a fire at Justice Varma's residence on March 14, which allegedly led to unaccounted cash being found by firefighters.
Allegations denied
Varma claims conspiracy to frame him
Justice Varma has denied the corruption allegations, claiming a conspiracy to frame him. An in-house probe was launched on March 22 by CJI Khanna with a three-member committee. After the panel indicted Justice Varma, then CJI Khanna forwarded the same to the president and prime minister, recommending his removal. He then moved the Supreme Court against these findings and recommendations.