Justice Yashwant Varma Case: Supreme Court Hearing- Live Updates

J Datta: we expected that you were instructed on 3(2); it is directly related to judge.

Sibal: it has to be as per Article 21

J Datta: but you have not challenged it

Sibal: I am challenging it now

J Datta: we have expressed our mind.

Sibal: once recommendation is given by CJI, which member of Parliament will not believe?

J Datta: something is in public domain, well meaning citizen writes to Lok Sabha for taking decision, but Lok Sabha doesn't what happens? we don't have jurisdiciton over this. But judiciary has to send a message to public that we are following procedure

J Datta: anything beyond the procedure? "to initiate action" v "to remove him" are two different things. The CJI, bound by inhouse procedure, has done the exact thing.

Sibal: it says directly for the removal

Sibal: reads the ex-CJI letter to the President; that's exactly what the motion says for the removal

Sibal: May I make a point? in full fledged inquiry, then the removal takes place. In this inquiry, there is no such procedure

J Datta: there is no question of that in the preliminary inquiry. You could have raised this point if there was a provision for cross-examination. Your submission is that it led to recommendation?

Sibal: no, in judges inquiry, there is a procedure for removal and in the inhouse, there is no such procedure. there is anomoly.

J Datta: is Parliament bound by inhouse procedure? the CJI feels that its a case which warrants being reported based on evidence, charges are serious and removal exercise should be undertaken. On the basis of inhouse, the CJI can withdraw judicial work but for the Parliament, they may or maynot take into consideration. It is not removal that is advised. Somebody advising initiating of procedure is different. the MPs looked into the CJI recommendation? is it out in public?

Sibal: reads the in-house procedure done in two stages:

Sibal: reading para, says that's what happened in this case

J Datta: why did you appear? conduct is relevant

Sibal: if committee finds the money belongs to me, I am fine

J Datta: that was not the issue before the committee. What were issues before committee? We will be very [harsh] in our language

Sibal: lets not go into that

J Datta: you know your case, we know ours. Let's not spill something...that is not the remit of the committee to find out whose money it is

Sibal: Neither Ravichandran nor this endorsed recommendation of removal

J Datta: you have to satisfy that within four corners, the issue is raised. You conduct does not inspires confidence. Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for favourable finding and once you found it to be palapable, you came here. Under Article 32, conduct is also relevant

J Datta: you should have come and made the fault corrected. When you know that inhouse procedure could trigger impeachment and according to you the Parliament can only removal, you should have said this comes in my way

Sibal: these observations dont endorse the recommendation of removal