The Supreme Court came down heavily on Justice Yashwant Varma, posing sharp questions regarding his delayed challenge to an in-house inquiry report that found him guilty of misconduct in the cash-at-home case. The apex court said that his conduct did not inspire confidence, and asked why he chose to appear before the inquiry committee without an immediate challenge, and only later approached the court.
The apex court is currently reviewing Justice Varma's petition, which seeks to quash the in-house inquiry procedure and the May 8 recommendation by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Varma's plea alleges that the panel's findings were based on a "preconceived narrative" and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said that while the CJI can inform the President and the Prime Minister about a judge's alleged misconduct, the judiciary must show the society that due process has been followed.
"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 said, and emphasised the importance of judicial accountability and the integrity of its internal mechanisms.
Representing Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the in-house inquiry panel's recommendation for his client's removal was unconstitutional and could set a dangerous precedent for the judiciary. Sibal said that Varma did not challenge the findings earlier because a tape related to the incident had been released, significantly damaging his reputation.
The controversy stems from the inquiry panel's report, which found that Justice Varma and his family members had control over a storeroom where a substantial cache of half-burnt cash was found following a fire on March 14. The three-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, conducted a 10-day inquiry, examining 55 witnesses and visiting the site. This evidence led to the finding of serious misconduct, warranting a recommendation for his removal. Following the report, then-CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Varma's impeachment.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also questioned advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who had filed a separate petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. Justice Dipankar Datta specifically asked Nedumpara if he had approached the police with a formal complaint before moving the court.
The Supreme Court has reserved its order on both Justice Varma's petition challenging the inquiry and Nedumpara's petition seeking an FIR.
