Why challenge inquiry after taking part in it, SC asks Justice Yashwant Varma

Posing some tough 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 during a fire on March 14, the Supreme Court on Monday sought to know why he appeared before the panel 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 be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first," a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih 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 belonged 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 hearing on July 30.

Sibal submitted 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 misbehaviour?" Sibal asked.

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

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 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 of India. 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.

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