Supreme Court dismisses Justice Varma’s plea against in-house inquiry in cash row

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging an in-house inquiry report, which indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his residence in Delhi during a fire on March 14.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih, which had reserved its judgment on July 30, rejected Justice Varma’s plea challenging the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for his removal.

It also dismissed advocate Mathews J Nedumpara’s petition seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma in this regard.

The Bench said Justice Varma’s petition cannot be entertained at all, in view of his conduct in participating in the in-house inquiry and later questioning the legality of the inquiry itself.

“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 had noted, while reserving its verdict.

While pronouncing the verdict, the Bench said, “We have held that the CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then.

“We have held that the CJI sending letters to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future. With this we have dismissed the writ petition," it said.

The Bench held that a petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under an in-house mechanism was not maintainable as the in-house procedure enjoyed legal sanctity and was not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework.

The then CJI Khanna and the in-house inquiry committee “scrupulously” followed the process, the top court said.

Regarding the uploading of photographs and videos of alleged cash recovery, the Bench said Justice Varma did not challenge it at the opportune moment.

Holding that there was no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights, it concluded that sending the in-house panel report to the President and the Prime Minister was not unconstitutional.

The top court, however, left open the possibility for Justice Varma to raise grievances through appropriate remedies in the future, if required.

Noting that his conduct didn’t inspire confidence, the Supreme Court on July 30 reserved its verdict on Justice Varma’s petition challenging the in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash.

India