Supreme Court to set up special bench to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's plea; CJI BR Gavai recuses himself

Justice Varma has denied any link to the cash

The Supreme court on Wednesday said it will constitute a bench to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's plea challenging the in-house inquiry report on the cash-at-home row.

According to Bar and Bench, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai recused from hearing the plea.
The matter was mentioned before CJI by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Justice Varma for urgent listing. "It will not be possible for me to take up this matter because I was also part of the committee. We will list it," the CJI said.

The Centre is reportedly planning to bring an impeachment motion in the Parliament to remove Justice Varma from office.

In his plea before the top court, Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the recommendation made by the former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as High Court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires.

The controversy broke on March 15 when firefighters were called to the judge's bungalow in central Delhi. They discovered piles of money that had been burnt by a fire that spread from the main building.

Following the cash recovery, a Supreme Court inquiry panel found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct and then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna urged Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge.

Justice Varma has denied any link to the cash, and labelled allegations of impropriety against him and members of his family "preposterous". He has also claimed a "conspiracy" against him.

The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.

Justice Varma has questioned the authority of the committee in recommending an impeachment. He argued that the in-house procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 are ‘administrative in nature’. He said the panel has a limited function and can handle the complaints against judges. However, it has unjustifiably extended beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding.

He said the panel creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism which goes against the provisions under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which give Parliament exclusive powers to remove judges of the Supreme Court or any High Court.

He also pointed out that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is a better option as it has a comprehensive process in this regard with stringent safeguards. He said the in-house procedure "usurps" Parliamentary authority and violates the doctrine of separation of powers.