Conduct doesn’t inspire trust: SC reserves order on Justice Varma’s plea

CJI not just a post office

“The CJI is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct (of a judge), the CJI has the duty to forward (the same) to the President and the PM.”

Bench

Noting that his conduct didn’t inspire confidence, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging an in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for the recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence here during a fire incident on March 14.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih reserved its verdict after hearing senior counsel Kapil Sibal — representing the beleaguered judge — who contended that the in-house inquiry committee’s recommendation for his removal was unconstitutional.

Sibal said the then CJI, Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation of proceedings for the removal of Justice Varma in this manner would set a dangerous precedent.

“The in-house procedure is limited to recommendation or advice and does not have the power to initiate removal proceedings. The in-house process was formulated as part of administrative powers and does not have binding authority,” Sibal said, urging the Bench to declare Justice Khanna’s recommendation unconstitutional.

However, the Bench said if the CJI had material to believe that there was misconduct by a judge, he could inform the President and the Prime Minister.

“The CJI is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct (of a judge), the CJI has the duty to forward (the same) to the President and the Prime Minister,” the Bench said.

The Bench questioned him for seeking invalidation of the in-house inquiry report that indicted him for misconduct and wondered why he appeared before the panel and didn’t challenge it then.

“Your conduct does not inspire confidence. Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. Under Article 32, conduct is also relevant,” the Bench noted.

The Bench, however, agreed with Sibal’s submission that videos of burnt wads of currency notes found at his residence should not have been uploaded on the top court’s website during the procedure. “We are with you on this. It should not have been leaked,” Justice Datta said.

However, it said just because tapes had been published on the website, it didn’t mean the process was vitiated and Justice Varma could go “scot-free”. The proceedings for his removal will be held independently in Parliament, without reference to the in-house report, the Bench said.

During the July 28 hearing, the Bench had asked Justice Varma, “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?”

“That cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought the committee would find out who the cash belonged to,” Sibal had told the Bench.

Following his indictment by the in-house committee report on May 3, the then CJI, Sanjiv Khanna, had on May 8 written to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal.

However, contending that Justice Khanna’s recommendation was in breach of the established constitutional mechanism envisaged under Article 124 read with Article 218 of the Constitution, Justice Varma had urged the top court to quash and set aside all consequential actions taken pursuant to the in-house committee’s May 3 final report.

Top News