'If Cash Is Found In Outhouse, Where Is Judge's Misbehaviour?' : Sibal For Justice Yashwant Varma In Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today argued that the presence of cash in the outhouse of a sitting High Court judge does not mean there is "misconduct" or "proved incapacity", the grounds required to remove a judge from his office under Article 124 of the Indian Constitution. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant...
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today argued that the presence of cash in the outhouse of a sitting High Court judge does not mean there is "misconduct" or "proved incapacity", the grounds required to remove a judge from his office under Article 124 of the Indian Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih was hearing a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma over the unaccounted cash row incident. Justice Varma has challenged the findings of the in-house committee, which indicted him and also the recommendation of the former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, writing to the President and the Prime Minister for the initiation of impeachment proceedings.
Sibal, while referring to the letter written by former CJI Khanna to the President, as per the in-house procedure for recommending impeachment, said that it can't be a basis for impeachment. He contended that the procedure for the removal of a judge has to be as per the Judges (Enquiry) Act, and just because the cash is found in the judge's house, it does not prove either "misconduct" or "proved incapacity".
"If cash has been found in the outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to be held? There is no allegation of behaviour, forget misbehaviour," Sibal said.
However, Justice Datta replied that it could be a misbehaviour within the meaning of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. To this, Sibal responded that it could be misbehaviour, but not to the extent of removing him from his office. Justice Datta then added: "Neither have you disputed the fire incident, nor the recovery of cash."
Sibal said that the police or the in-house panel never found whom the cash belonged to.
Sibal's core argument was that the CJI has no authority to write to the President recommending initiation of the impeachment proceedings, as it has to be moved by the members of Parliament. He said the President and the Prime Minister are "alien" to this process and the Government cannot can neither initiate nor recommend impeachment proceedings.
He said: "If Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha members are satisfied that the conduct is such that it requires his removal, they will move a motion."
Justice Datta remarked that the findings of the committee are not considered as evidence, so there should not be any grievance at this stage. To this, Sibal responded that it became a basis of the impeachment motion and added: "The Chief Justice of India sent a communication recommending removal, what is Parliament to do than to accept it?"
Justice Datta clarified that, as per the Judges Enquiry Act, it has to be preceded by an inquiry of the three-judge committee.
The Court will hear the matter on Wednesday.
Case Details: XXX v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
Click Here To Read/Download Order
'Mere Cash Discovery Doesn't Establish Guilt': Justice Yashwant Varma In Supreme Court Petition