SC rejects Justice Varma's plea, says conduct does not inspire confidence

Observing that in-house procedure was scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma's plea seeking invalidation of an in-house inquiry report finding him guilty of misconduct in a cash discovery row.

Wads of burnt cash were found following a fire in the storeroom of the judge's official residence in Delhi on 14 March.

Questioning Justice Varma's conduct, the top court said he did not object to the photographs or video footage of the burnt cash being uploaded, and participated in the inquiry without demur.

The bench said even in his representation dated 6 May, addressed to then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, there was "no whisper" of the procedure violating any constitutional provision.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that Justice Varma's conduct did not inspire confidence, not meriting his plea to be examined. Justice Varma had sought quashing of the 8 May recommendation by then CJI Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

The top court rejected the submission of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the beleaguered judge and called the in-house inquiry and the report a "parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism".

"The procedure (in-house) has its roots in the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution admits of no doubt. The contention that the procedure lacks legal sanction must, accordingly, fail," the verdict said.

The 57-page judgment continued, "Notably, if Parliament, despite strong indication of a judge either having indulged in misbehaviour or suffering from incapacity, does not initiate any proceedings for removal, no proceeding in a judicial forum would perhaps lie for activating Parliament to have such judge removed from office."

Cash discovery row: 63 Oppn MPs submit notice in RS for removal of Varma

The bench said the "power, competence, authority and jurisdiction" of Parliament to decide what was in the best interests of the nation was left "untrammelled" by the procedure.

"Hence, it is fallacious to argue that the procedure is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a judge," it added.

The apex court went on to frame six legal questions on maintainability, the legal procedure adopted, violation of fundamental rights and whether an inquiry is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism aside from compliance with process and answered them.

The top court said the then CJI and the in-house committee scrupulously followed procedure except for uploading of the video footage and the photographs.

"We have held that it was not required to do so (upload the photos and videos of the fire-fighting operation on the SC website) as per the procedure. But having said so, we have held that nothing turns on it, because at the opportune moment, you did not question it. And there is also no relief claimed in the writ petition in so far as the uploading is concerned," the bench said.

The apex court held that the in-house procedure and the judges' committee appointed by the former CJI adhered to the stipulated procedure and sending of the report to the prime minister and president with recommendation for his removal was not unconstitutional.

"If a complaint of misconduct committed by a judge is received and if at an inquiry conducted under the procedure the allegations against such a judge are found to have sufficient substance, he cannot claim any immunity — either by citing abrogation of his Fundamental Rights or breach of the constitutional scheme for removal of a judge by initiating proceedings for impeachment — that his conduct is not open to be commented upon by the committee or even by the CJI," the bench said.

Opinion divided on the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma

The top court said the CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system "pure, clean and unpolluted".

It is unreasonable, the bench said, to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for Parliament to take action. It is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124, it noted.

"Left to him, 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 verdict said.

The judgment underlined such concerns and the legal position of President being the ultimate appointing authority of judges besides Prime Minister being the head of the council of ministers, upon whose aid and advice President acts under our Constitution, coupled with receipt of complaints from the office of the President, to hold the provision requiring the CJI to write to President and Prime Minister along with the report of the committee to be "quite in order, legal and valid".

"We repeat, the office of the CJI is not to be regarded as a post office that the report should only be routed through the CJI without his observations," the bench said.

The court also found no violation of Justice Varma's fundamental rights. Justice Varma, however, was granted the liberty to raise his contentions in any impeachment proceedings if initiated against him.