Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Challenging CJI's Recommendation For His Removal

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih, who had reserved the judgment on July 30, pronounced the judgment today.

Pronouncing the judgment, the bench held at the outset that the writ petition cannot be entertained at all, in view of the conduct of Justice Varma in participating in the in-house inquiry and later questioning the competence of the in-house panel to conduct the inquiry.

Even though the writ petition was found to be non-maintainable, the bench chose to decide the other five issues, having regard to the importance of the constitutional issues raised.

The other issues were framed as :

1. Does the inquiry have legal sanction?

2. Is the inquiry and the consequent report in terms of the procedure a parallel extra-constitutional mechanism?

"We have said that the procedure has legal sanction. We have also held that it is not a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism," Justice Datta stated while pronouncing the judgment.

3. Does Para 5B of the in-house procedure fall foul of Article 124 and Article 217 & 218 of the Constitution and abrogate any fundamental right of a Judge of the High Court? "The answer is in the negative", Justice Datta stated.

4. Did the CJI or the committee constituted by the CJI act in terms of the procedure or in deviation thereof?

"Here, we have held that the CJI and the committee constituted by the CJI have scrupulously followed the procedure, except one- that is, the uploading of the video footage and the photographs."

"We have held that it was not required to do so (upload the photos and videos of the fire-fighting operation on the SC Website) as per the procedure. But having said so, we have held that nothing turns on it, because at the opportune moment, you did not question it. And there is no relief claimed in the writ petition in so far as the uploading is concerned," Justice Datta stated.

5. Is the requirement of paragraph 7(2) of the procedure requiring the CJI to forward the report to the President and Prime Minister unconstitutional? "We have held that it is not unconstitutional," the bench pronounced.

The bench also addressed the submission that the opportunity of hearing was not given to the Judge before forwarding the report to the President and the PM. The bench held that doing so was not the requirement of the procedure. Just because in another instance such a right was given to another Judge does not mean that the petitioner can claim it as a matter of right.

The bench also reserved the right of Justice Varma to raise his contentions in any impeachment proceedings if initiated against him. 

The bench also dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma on the ground of "abuse of process of the Court" and "the making of incorrect submissions on oath by the petitioner."

The crux of Sibal's argument was that a judge could only be removed either on grounds of "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity" under Article 124(4). The in-house procedure, which allows the Chief Justice of India to write to the President recommending the initiation of the impeachment, is unconstitutional. CJI's recommendation can't be the basis for the initiation of impeachment. However, Justice Datta had remarked that the in-house procedure is only an ad-hoc preliminary inquiry and when its report is not even treated as evidence, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved at this stage.

The issue relates to the accidental discovery of a huge pile of currency notes at an outhouse of the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, during a fire-fighting operation on March 14.

After the discovery led to a huge public controversy, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted an in-house inquiry committee of three judges- Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court). Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and judicial work was withdrawn from him pending the inquiry.