'If Materials Show Misconduct, CJI Has Duty To Forward' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea

The Supreme Court today(July 30) reserved judgment on the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the in-house inquiry report, which indicted him in the case-at-home scandal, as well as the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation made to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal.A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih heard the matter. The bench also heard a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of FIR against Justice Varma.At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Justice Yashwant Varma, summarised the main points of arguments, as follows :Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124.When the CJI recommends the removal of a judge on the basis of an in-house procedure, it holds great persuasive value, since it comes from a high constitutional authority, which can influence the process in the Parliament. By making such a recommendation, CJI is interfering with the domain of the Parliament.Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court such as K Veeraswami, Ravichandran Iyer. When Justice Datta asked about the relief Justice Varma was asking, Sibal replied that he wanted a declaration that the CJI's recommendation for Justice Varma's removal was "non-est.""If we were to say Iyer, Indira Jaising and Additional District Judge X is correctly decided, (which formulated the in-house inquiry process), that would be the end of this matter," Justice Datta said. Justice Datta further said that the clause "otherwise" in Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act allowed the initiation of in-house procedure and withdrawal of judicial work from a judge."Chief Justice [of India] is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him [regarding misconduct], CJI has the duty to forward to the President and the Prime Minister. If on the basis of the material it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this Court saying CJI has the authority to do so," Justice Datta said.Justice Datta further stated that "in-house procedure" was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141. Repeating the query of the last day, Justice Datta further asked why Justice Varma did not challenge the in-house procedure at the commencement itself if he was of the view that the procedure was unconstitutional."Tape should not have been leaked" : Bench agreesHowever, the bench agreed with Sibal's contention that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure."We are with you on this for the time being. It should not have been leaked, " Justice Datta said. "But what turns on it?," Justice Datta further asked. He asked if the members of "high calibre" would be influenced by such material. Sibal pointed out that the videos were uploaded on the Supreme Court's website, which would make them seem more credible. He said that politicians and Parliamentarians were making statements based on the images and videos, prejudicing the case against Justice Varma.Justice Datta then pointed out that Justice Varma never approached the Court seeking their removal."Your conduct does not inspire confidence" : Bench to J VarmaThe bench took exception to Justice Varma choosing to challenge the in-house inquiry process after participating fully in it."Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction, conduct is also relevant," Justice Datta said in the context of the judgment recognising the points on which the judge can approach the Court challenging the committee's report. Sibal highlighted that the in-house committee has not found out to whom the money belonged. Justice Datta said it was not an issue before the committee."That was not the issue before the committee. What were the issues before the committee? We will be very guarded in our language...you know your case, we are also studying something. Let's not spill something here, leave it for the Parliament to decide...That is not the remit of the committee to find out whose money it is," Justice Datta cautioned against going into the merits of the findings. "Let us not go there," Sibal also agreed.In-house report only a preliminary finding : Bench The bench observed during the...

'If Materials Show Misconduct, CJI Has Duty To Forward' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags