SC rejects HC judge’s plea against inquiry

THe sublime margaret court on th dismissed justness Yashwant Varma’s petition against the legality of the in-house research that affirmed “strong inferential evidence” of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year, upholding both the procedure and the authority of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in recommending his removal to the President and Prime Minister.The bench, comprising justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, refused to entertain the petition on multiple grounds, criticising the conduct of the sitting Allahabad high court judge under scrutiny. “The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence for us to entertain the writ petition,” said the court, adding that it could have dismissed the plea on this basis alone, but chose instead to address the legal questions in detail.The court expressed disapproval of justice Varma’s conduct, noting that he willingly participated in the inquiry without protest, raised no constitutional objections at the outset, and only challenged the procedure after an adverse report was submitted.“Once the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction, is it not to be presumed that he did so expecting a favourable outcome and the writ petition came to be filed only when the outcome was not palatable to him?” the bench asked.By a separate order, the bench also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of a first information report into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court and that his petition was an “abuse of the process of law”. The court noted that although Nedumpara’s petition stated categorically that he had moved a representation before the government and the Delhi police to lodge an FIR, the statement was found to be incorrect.The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. The government has said that the proceedings will be taken up in the Lower House.The court found it baffling that justice Varma, who was in March serving as a judge in the Delhi high court when the incident happened, acquiesced to incriminating materials, including photographs and video footage, being uploaded on the Supreme Court website, only to object after the report found substance in the allegations.While terming such uploading as improper and not required by the procedure, the bench dismissed the judge’s arguments that it vitiated the inquiry, given that the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, “scrupulously” followed the in-house inquiry procedure.Rejecting senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s contention that the in-house procedure lacked legal force, the court reaffirmed its validity, citing the precedents laid down in C Ravichandran Iyer (1995), PD Dinakaran (2011) and Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ (2015) judgments.“The procedure has its roots in the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is judicial legislation that emerged because of the vacuum in the field of disciplining a judge who shows signs of delinquency,” the judgment stated.The court clarified that the in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism but a “stitch in time” to address bad conduct before it amounts to “proved misbehaviour”.“The Parliament’s power to initiate proceedings for removal of a judge for alleged misbehaviour or incapacity remains unfettered…Even without a recommendation from the CJI, Parliament may act if there is cause. Conversely, even with a recommendation, it may decline to act,” clarified the bench, adding the in-house procedure only aims to maintain institutional integrity, not substitute for impeachment.In its 57-page judgment, the bench rejected arguments that the in-house procedure, which contemplates a panel of chief justices and judges of constitutional courts to inquire into a contentious episode involving judges, violates Articles 14 (equal protection of law) and 21 (life and liberty) or undermines judicial independence.“The procedure laid down is fair and just and does not compromise judicial independence,” held the court, underlining that a judge cannot claim immunity from scrutiny once allegations are found to have substance.The judgment emphasised that judicial independence is not “unfettered liberty to act as one might wish,” and must be balanced with accountability. “Compromising one compromises the other,” it noted.The court found no procedural irregularities in the way the CJI handled the complaint, apart from the uploading of videos, which it deemed improper but immaterial. It upheld the part of the in-house procedure that obliges the CJI to send the inquiry report to the President and Prime Minister, calling it a valid mechanism consistent with constitutional principles.“The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, owes a duty to keep the justice delivery system clean and unpolluted. It is unreasonable to think he must wait for Parliament to act,” said the court.Rejecting justice Varma’s contentions about overreach, it added: “The office of the CJI is not to be regarded as a post office that the report should only be routed through him without his observations.”The bench also made strong observations about the need for accountability in the higher judiciary. “Judicial officers in every rank, and more specifically, the judges in the higher echelons of the judiciary owe huge obligation to the people of this country…Any thought of there being absence of disciplinary measure other than removal by impeachment and therefore escaping unscathed despite committing a misbehaviour or indulging in bad conduct/misconduct, is what is normal, should be eschewed,” it said.Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after.The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of “strong inferential evidence” linking justice Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and PM, triggering the legal challenge...