‘Your conduct does not inspire confidence’: SC reserves order on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea in cash discovery row
The Supreme Court told Justice Yashwant Varma's lawyer that the in-house procedure has been upheld in past rulings and part of judicial self-regulation and that if the Chief Justice of India has material to believe that there is misconduct by a judge then he can inform the president and the prime minister.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30), while reserving order on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging the in-house committee report indicting him in the cash discovery row and recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him, asked him why he participated in the inquiry when believed the same to be unconstitutional, saying your conduct does not inspire confidence and let Parliament decide.
"Your conduct does not inspire confidence. Your conduct says a lot,” a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih told senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Yashwant Varma.
Sibal argued that the in-house inquiry committee’s recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal is unconstitutional and that recommendation of proceedings for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent. He further argued that the in-house process is limited to recommendation or advice and it cannot recommend removal and that the in-house process was formulated as part of administrative powers and it does not have binding authority.
The bench questioned Justice Varma’s participation in the in-house proceedings when he believed it to be unconstitutional and the timing of moving the court belatedly.
"You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there..the points you are raising are major but it could been raised before and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. You don't want something to spill here. Let parliament decide,” the bench told Sibal.
The bench further said that the in-house procedure has been upheld in past rulings and part of judicial self-regulation and that if the Chief Justice of India has material to believe that there is misconduct by a judge then he can inform the president and the prime minister.
"Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But judiciary has to send a message to the society that process has been followed," the bench observed.
The apex court, during the last hearing, questioning the maintainability of Justice Varma’s plea and had noted that the primary relief sought by him was effectively against the Supreme Court itself, saying "this petition shouldn’t have been filed."
The bench had asked several questions from Sibal over his submissions seeking to invalidate an in-house inquiry panel report into the allegations of discovery of large stash of burnt cash from his official Delhi residence following a fire incident at his residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14.
The three-member committee, appointed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna on March 22, confirmed the allegations of cash discovery against Justice Varma in its inquiry report and the then CJI forwarded the said report along with the response of Justice Varma to the President and the Prime Minister after Justice Varma refused to resign.