Justice Varma’s Challenge | Day 2: Supreme Court reserves judgement in challenge to in-house procedure
Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to in-house procedureJudges: Dipankar Datta J, A.G. Masih J
Today, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G.Masih reserved judgement in Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to the in-house procedure which found that he had control of the burnt cash that was discovered at his official residence. The in-house committee was established by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who had recommended Justice Varma’s removal to the President and the Prime Minister.
The Bench observed that the petition does not inspire confidence. They stated, “Once you submit to an authority, and once the result is not palatable to you, you can’t challenge that authority later. You knew that the in-house procedure could go against you”. The Court had raised a similar point earlier, asking why Justice Varma had initially participated in the in-house procedure if he believed it had no legitimacy.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Justice Varma. In the previous hearing, he had argued that Justice Varma had faced a media trial and the recommendation of his removal by the former CJI was unconstitutional.
Bench: In-house procedure covered under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
Sibal argued that the in-house procedure initiated against Justice Varma had no legal basis and had only moral or ethical force. Justice Datta observed that the Supreme Court could initiate an in-house procedure, and the process was squarely covered under Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 (JPA). This came as a complete surprise to Sibal, who questioned the statute’s application in this case. Section 3(2) states that the Supreme Court can initiate any action, whether by way of “civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise”, against any person who was or is a Judge. The Bench asked Sibal why it could not interpret the word “otherwise” to cover an in-house procedure.
Sibal pointed out that none of the other judgements had relied on the JPA to justify an in-house procedure. Justice Datta quipped that it did not stop the Bench from doing so. Interestingly, Sibal stated that he intends to challenge the validity of the Act as it is inconsistent with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. To this, Justice Datta responded that the Bench could have directly relied on the provision in the judgement, and stated that the word “otherwise” means non-punitive proceedings to maintain institutional integrity. Referring to the in-house proceedings, Justice Datta added, “We will make it legal, apart from it being ethical”. Lastly, he observed that the Court would not allow Sibal to challenge the vires of the JPA as he had brought up the challenge only after the Bench pointed it out.
Sibal: Recommendation to remove Justice Varma influenced Parliamentary proceedings
At the outset, Sibal highlighted that Justice Varma was not challenging the procedure at all. Nor was he challenging the denial of natural justice or the stoppage of his judicial work. He was challenging the procedure to the extent it acted as a prompt and trigger for the CJI to initiate the removal process. In other words, his challenge was confined to CJI Khanna’s recommendation to remove Justice Varma from office, on the ground that it was extra-constitutional and ignored the procedural safeguards provided in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. He argued that the former CJI’s recommendation clearly influenced the decision-making and evaluation process in Parliament, violating the overarching mandate of Article 14.
Justice Datta then inquired how declaring the recommendation for removal non-est would impede the proceedings in Parliament. He further pointed out a series of judgements by the Supreme Court, namely, Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability(1991), Indira Jaising v Registrar General, Supreme Court (2003) and Additional District and Sessions Judge, X v Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2014) which had affirmed the validity of in-house procedure.
Supreme Court: Why did Justice Varma not approach the Court sooner?
Sibal then pointed out that CJI Khanna’s decision to release tape and media reports about the money found in Justice Varma’s house damaged his reputation. Justice Datta asked why he did not immediately approach the Court to challenge it.
Sibal explained that Justice Varma could not have got any relief as the video had already been uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website. He also added that the High Court judge could not have come to the Court prior to the CJI’s recommendation to remove him, as he could not have anticipated it.
Bench: Preliminary in-house report will not influence Parliament proceedings
Sibal submitted that the in-house mechanism was only to fill the “yawning gap” between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office, as mentioned in C. Ravichandran Iyer v A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995). Justice Datta responded saying that the CJI’s office is not supposed to be a post office, the CJI is bound to inform the President and the Prime Minister on the basis of material which suggests serious misconduct by a Judge. He recalled that in C.Ravichandran Iyer, there was absence of legal sanction to probe allegations against a Judge, and that was the trigger for the Bench to suggest in-house procedure.
Justice Datta agreed with Sibal that the disclosure of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s preliminary report suggesting a deeper probe into the cash-at-home incident, should not have been done. However, he added, “That lapse does not affect the powers of Parliament to take action against you. Parliament has its own powers, and is not guided by what the CJI says”.
He asked Sibal whether the three members of the Inquiry Committee (to be set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker), would be influenced by the preliminary report of the in-house committee. “You are free to demolish the report of the in-house committee and the tape uploaded on the SC’s website”, he told Sibal.
Sibal told the Bench that it was the in-house committee’s report which forced Parliament members to move the motion of removal against Justice Varma. He added that he could not have attacked the in-house committee in Parliament. Justice Datta replied that it was only a preliminary report and could not affect future proceedings in Parliament. If it does, at the appropriate time, Justice Varma can approach the Court, the Bench said.
Supreme Court: Parliament can reject the CJI’s recommendation
Justice Datta said the Bench would consider his plea in its judgement, but averred that there was no violation of the in-house procedure. He told Sibal that it would be for Parliament to decide whether the money belonged to Justice Varma or not. Further, Parliament was free to reject the recommendation of his removal, as it was not binding.
“In-house procedure has been in place for almost 30 years. All of us take oath knowing that our conduct would be regulated by it”, the Bench told Sibal.
Nedumpara’s petition
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara reminded the Bench about his petition seeking a First Information Report against Justice Varma. To this, the Bench directed him to file an affidavit detailing how he got access to the in-house report. Nedumpara remarked that he got the report from the legal news portal LiveLaw. This provoked the Bench to warn that notice would be issued against the news agency. However, LiveLaw sought to deny that it had leaked the report first.
The Bench asked Nedumpara to produce a copy of the representation dated 26 May 2025 to the police seeking registration of FIR, as mentioned in his petition. When he explained that he did not make the representation because of the Supreme Court’s judgement in K. Veeraswami v Union of India (1991). The decision mandated prior sanction of the CJI for registration of FIR against a sitting Judge. The Bench said it could not help Nedumpara if he did not approach the police, as claimed by him.
While parting, Sibal and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that former CJI K.G. Balakrishnan had given the opportunity of a personal hearing to Justice Soumitra Sen, who once faced impeachment proceedings. The Bench said it would consider this issue whether the denial of personal hearing by the former CJI Khanna to Justice Varma vitiated the in-house procedure.
The Bench then reserved its judgement.