SC poses serious questions to Justice Yashwant Varma; further hearing on July 30

The Supreme Court on Monday posed some serious questions to Justice Yashwant Varma over his petition challenging an in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi during a fire on March 14.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih sought to know why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee if he thought it was illegal.

'Why did you appear before the (in-house) inquiry committee? Did you come to the court to have the video removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report to be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?' the Bench asked senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who represented Justice Varma.

"That cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought the committee would find out who the cash belongs to," Sibal told the Bench.

The Bench also grilled him over the parties he chose to make to his petition and not filing a copy of the in-house inquiry report, saying the Union of India was not needed as a respondent.

Asking Sibal to come with one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, the Bench posted the matter for July 30.

Sibal submitted that there was a process under Article 124 of the Constitution and a judge could not be a subject matter of public debate. He said the CJI could not have recommended Justice Varma’s removal to the government.

"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 misbehavior," Sibal said.

However, the Bench said the petitioner neither denied the presence of cash nor the fire.

Questioning the release of video/s showing recovery of half-burnt cash from his residence, Sibal said, “The release of video on the Supreme Court website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme.”

Justice Varma has contended that the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s May 8 recommendation following the May 3 indictment by the in-house committee, was in breach of the established constitutional mechanism envisaged under Article 124 read with Article 218 of the Constitution. He has also urged the top court to quash and set aside all consequential actions taken pursuant to the in-house committee’s final report dated May 3, 2025.

Last week, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the proceedings to remove Justice Varma would take place in the Lok Sabha.

However, maintaining that the essential mandate of the committee was to discover the truth as to when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse; how much cash was placed in the outhouse; if the cash/currency is genuine or not; the cause of the fire; and if he was in any manner responsible for the “removal” of “remnants of currency” on March 15, 2025,  Justice Varma assailed the in-house inquiry for reversing the burden of proof, requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.

“The mere discovery of cash provides no conclusive resolution. It remains essential to determine whose cash and how much was discovered. These aspects bear directly on the severity of the allegations, and equally, on the potential for orchestrated scandal; added to by the cause of the fire, whether intentional or accidental, and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged “removal” of the currency,” Justice Varma submitted.

Noting that the final report provided no answers to these pivotal questions, he questioned its substantive findings for being “untenable, based on unjustified inferences, not evidence”.

He also faulted the committee for violating principles of natural justice as it failed to notify him of the procedure devised by it and there was no mechanism for him to request or contribute inputs on evidence to be collected. There was lack of notice of charges or preliminary findings, denial of a personal hearing and selective disclosure of evidence, he contended.

Questioning the hurry on the part of the then CJI Khanna in endorsing the committee’s findings and conclusions on the same day, he pointed out that it was followed by a communication advising him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unduly restricted timeline (by 7 pm on May 6, 2025), failing which an action to initiate his “removal” would be initiated. “The petitioner was denied any opportunity for a personal hearing, contrary to established precedents in similar cases,” he submitted.

Justice Varma contended that it was contrary to past practice and convention in implementation of the in-house procedure that envisaged a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before any advice was rendered to the judge concerned based upon the in-house committee report.