Cash at judge’s house: SC dismisses Justice Varma’s plea against in-house probe

In a setback to Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed his petition challenging an in-house inquiry report dated May 3, which indicted him for the recovery of unaccounted cash at his residence in Delhi during a fire incident on March 14.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih observed, “If indeed any fault were found in the (in-house) procedure and questions were to be raised, the petitioner (Justice Varma) ought not to have waited for completion of the fact-finding inquiry set in motion by the CJI. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, does not inspire much confidence for us to entertain the writ petition.”

The Bench, which had reserved its judgment on July 30, also rejected Justice Varma’s plea challenging the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for his removal. Last month, notices for Justice Varma’s removal were submitted in both Houses of Parliament.

Representing Justice Varma, senior counsel Kapil Sibal had argued that then CJI Khanna’s recommendation for removal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent. However, writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Datta said, “The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted. It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for Parliament to take action.”

The judgment emphasised that “the CJI, upon being informed of a judge’s remissness, does have the authority -- moral, ethical and legal -- to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear.”

The Bench further stated, “If indeed, the CJI has reiterated the finding of the committee as contained in the report and recommended initiation of proceedings for removal of the petitioner from office, such a recommendation cannot be impeached on any valid and legal ground.”

The Supreme Court also dismissed a separate petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. However, the Bench left open the possibility for Justice Varma to pursue appropriate remedies in the future, if required.