As the Central government is set to introduce an impeachment motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, the judge has moved the Supreme Court against the report by the three-judge panel that indicted him over the discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence.
In his petition before the Supreme Court, Justice Varma has given five reasons challenging his indictment which include questions over the jurisdiction and authority of an in-house committee, set up by former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna, to investigate a sitting judge.
Justice Varma is at the centre of a controversy over the alleged recovery of cash at his official bungalow in New Delhi. In his petition to the apex court, he has challenged the in-house inquiry report that recommended his impeachment.
The in-house panel consisted of Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman.
Notably, no judge in independent India has ever been impeached. There have been five such cases where it was a possibility and the most recent was in 2018 which involved former Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra, who was accused of administrative misconduct and arbitrary allocation of cases.
Here are the five key reasons that Justice Varma has offered the Supreme Court:
In-house procedure extra-constitutional
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.
Supreme Court or CJI has no disciplinary power over judges
Justice Varma has also questioned the disciplinary or superintendence powers of the Chief Justice of India or the Supreme Court over High Courts or their judges.
He argued that the Constitution confers no such superintendence or disciplinary powers on the Supreme Court or the CJI.
He contended that the self-regulating procedures, such as the in-house procedure, cannot circumvent or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges. He added that they do not provide the CJI an unregulated authority to act as the arbiter of the fate of other judges.
Further, he also questioned the invocation of in-house procedure against him as improper, pointing out there was no formal complaint but only "presumptive queries" based on unsubstantiated allegations that he owned the cash that was discovered which caused the removal of its remnants after the fire.
He also said that the three-judge panel did not notify him of its devised procedure and denied him the opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected.
He has alleged that the witnesses were examined in his absence and that he was provided with their "paraphrased statements" instead of video recordings.
In the plea, it is argued that the in-house committee failed to collect the relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage, highlighting, it was important to find out its source and volume. He has said that the panel has not answered whose cash it was and how much was discovered.
No time given to review report
Justice Varma argued that CJI Khanna did not give Justice Varma sufficient time to review the final report of the committee, before recommending his removal from office. He said that a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior-most judges was required to be given before any advice was rendered based upon the panel report.
The plea claimed that the CJI asked Justice Varma to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unduly restricted timeline. He said the impeachment was recommended to President Murmu and Prime Minister Modi "within hours" of the CJI getting that report.
Media trial
Justice Varma told the Supreme Court that the unprecedented release of the report and a Supreme Court press release on March 22 making the allegations against him public subjected him to a media trial. He said this caused irreparable damage to his reputation and career as a judicial officer, and violated his right to dignity.
He said such public disclosure was disproportionate and violative of the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
He said sections of the final report of the in-house Supreme Court committee, which was meant to be confidential, had been leaked and "misrepresented" by the press.
Questions were raised over the sanctity of the judiciary upon the news of discovery of the burnt cash at his home,causing the possible erosion of public trust, prompting the release of a (partly redacted) initial report into the finding of the money. Justice Varma said this aggravated damage to his reputation and also undermined the sanctity of the investigative process.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
