How Can You Challenge In-House Inquiry After Participating In Process? Supreme Court Asks Justice Yashwant Varma

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28) asked Justice Yashwant Varma how he could challenge the in-house inquiry held against him after participating in the process. The Court also asked him why he waited for the inquiry committee to submit the report if it was his case that the committee had no power to probe into the issue.A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was hearing Justice Varma's writ petition challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal.As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Datta objected to the Union of India being made a respondent. "This petition should not have been filed so casually, maybe it missed your notice also. There are three respondents, your main grievance is against the Supreme Court. Union of India, not required. Supreme Court, through the Registrar, confidential, not required. Main is, Respondent no. 2, through whom the Supreme Court is to be represented, Secretary General," Justice Datta said. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioner, agreed to change the memo of parties.Sibal argued that a judge can be removed only as per Article 124 of the Constitution and not through public debates based on the report of the in-house inquiry committee, which he alleged did not follow due procedure. "There is a process under Article 124(5); before that, a judge can't be the subject matter of public debate. That is set out by the sub-committee judgment of the Supreme Court constitution bench. The motion is filed through Speaker or Chairman of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha and that motion is kept pending, if the Speaker admits the motion, the Judges Enquiry Committee is set up. Till that stage, that process is not a process of the house. That is also have been held by the five judge bench of this Court. The process is outside the House and Speaker acts as a statutory authority and therefore, it cannot be challenged. The constitution bench judge also holds that till that process is initiated and completed, the judge's conduct can't be discussed anywhere. What happened in this case, tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, completely contrary to the constitution bench judgment. The man stands already convicted. And what are the questions asked? You please explain where you got this cash from. He says, look, it doesn't belong to me. Nobody inquires into that, and what are the three adverse inferences? Why did you not go straight place and why did you go to your mother. When the transfer was made, why did you not object?" Sibal argued. He argued that the judges' panel cannot make a recommendation for impeachment, as it is completely within the domain of the Parliament.He also added that to relieve a judge from discharging his judicial function cannot be granted in the meantime. In this context, he said that the in-house procedure is contrary to this understanding."All that has happened thus far is completely contrary to the Constitution- release of tapes, putting it on website, and in public furore consequential thereto public discussion, media interaction, accusation against the judge, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited- that is the question that arises for the Lordships' consideration. If that procedure allows them to do that, that procedure is contrary to the judgment itself...procedure has become political," Sibal submitted while referring to the 1991 judgment on Sub-Committee On Judicial Accountability. By the release of the report's findings, the process has been politicised, he argued.Justice Datta, however, said that even the impeachment process is political. The Judge also observed that the petitioner cannot raise these points after having participated in the inquiry by the in-house panel. "Why did you appear before the procedural committee? Why didn't you challenge it then and there? Can we say that you took a chance of favourable findings? You are a constitutional authority, you can't say I don't know or I am not aware of what the reinstatement of judicial norms are...You should have immediately come to this court and obtained order," Justice Datta observed. Sibal submitted that he was already convicted by the public and the Committee was set up on March 25 where had raised the contentions.Sibal also took objection to the Chief Justice of India recommending to the President and the Prime Minister the removal of the petitioner. He said that as per the in-house procedure, it was not within the CJI's authority to recommend the removal of a judge. He further submitted that forwarding the report to the President and the Prime Minister was wrong, as an impeachment motion is to be sponsored by the MPs and not the government.Justice Datta, however, disagreed, saying that as the appointing authority, the matter has to be placed before the President. Since the President acts as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, forwarding it to the Prime Minister is also...

How Can You Challenge In-House Inquiry After Participating In Process? Supreme Court Asks Justice Yashwant Varma

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags