Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, August 7, dismissed a writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, who faces possible impeachment after a fire at his then official residence in Delhi on March 14 uncovered a large stash of burnt currency notes -- an episode widely dubbed the “cash-at-home” scandal. Justice Varma challenged both the in-house inquiry report that indicted him and the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendation to the President and Prime Minister for his removal from office.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, which had reserved its verdict on July 30, held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Justice Varma’s participation in the in-house inquiry before later questioning its legality. “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 observed.
While noting the petition’s non-maintainability, the court addressed five constitutional issues raised in the matter. It ruled that the in-house procedure has legal sanction, is not a “parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism”, does not violate the fundamental rights of a High Court judge, and that the CJI and the committee followed due process, barring the non-uploading of photographs and videos from the fire-fighting operation—an omission the court found inconsequential.
Rejecting arguments that the CJI merely acts as a “post office” in forwarding the report, the Bench said: “The CJI is clearly an important person, if not the most, in the larger scheme of maintaining institutional interest and credibility… The Chief Justice is under an obligation to forward the report to the President and the Prime Minister, and may express his own views.”
It further held that paragraph 7(2) of the in-house procedure—requiring the CJI to forward such reports—is not unconstitutional, and there is no procedural requirement to give the concerned judge an additional hearing before doing so.
On the scope of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the court clarified that it does not shield judges from internal disciplinary mechanisms like the in-house procedure. The inquiry, it said, is a preliminary fact-finding exercise, not a removal mechanism.
The controversy began after the fire in Justice Varma’s store-room revealed the burnt cash, triggering a three-judge panel probe led by Justice Sheel Nagu with Justices GS Sandhawalia and Anu Sivaraman. The committee found the allegations serious enough to warrant initiation of removal proceedings.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi represented Justice Varma, arguing that under the Constitution, a judge’s removal can only be based on “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and that the in-house procedure is unconstitutional to the extent it enables a removal recommendation.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that the in-house process does not by itself remove a judge and is “fair and just” while upholding judicial independence. The court also dismissed a separate petition by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma for alleged abuse of court process.
Justice Varma retains the right to raise his contentions if impeachment proceedings are initiated against him in Parliament.
(With IANS inputs)