Justice Varma’s Challenge | Day 1: Allahabad HC judge questions in-house procedure
Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to in-house procedureJudges: Dipankar Datta J, A.G. Masih J
On 28 July, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G.Masih heard Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against the in-house committee’s finding of his guilt. His writ petition is titled XXX v Union of India, ostensibly to conceal his identity and safeguard his reputation. However, it also appears to convey the message that the conduct of a sitting judge cannot be discussed in public, thereby protecting the independence of the judiciary.
The Bench questioned why the writ was filed. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that the judge was subjected to a media trial with his report becoming public. He cited the Court’s judgement in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v Union of India (1991), to explain that till an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is concluded, the conduct of the judge cannot be discussed anywhere else. However, he alleged that this was breached in Justice Varma’s case.
What became apparent during the hearing was that Justice Varma was targeting the motion for his removal from office, which was admitted by the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla. He argued that the removal motion was based on the in-house committee’s report, which was unconstitutional.
Sibal: Justice Varma was a victim of a media trial
Sibal argued that the Supreme Court’s release of the report and tape on 22 March after the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence was contrary to the Constitution Bench judgements. The release of the report, Sibal said, led to public furore, media trial and accusations against the judge.
“The in-house committee asked the judge to explain the presence of cash at the outhouse. He replied that it does not belong to him. Based on this reply, the committee formed certain inferences, making them part of the record and submitted its report, which is now in public domain,” he said.
The Bench questioned why the committee’s report was not included in the petition. Sibal responded that the in-house proceedings were supposed to be confidential. But, its leak in the public domain damaged Justice Varma’s reputation.
Advocate Mathews Joseph Nedumpara, who is seeking the registration of a First Information Report against Justice Varma, interjected to state that he had annexed a copy of the in-house report with his petition. The Bench, however, informed him that it did not read the report.
Sibal: CJI’s recommendation of removal was unconstitutional
Sibal argued that the very process of the CJI sending copies of the in-house report to the President and the Prime Minister and recommending initiation of removal proceedings in Parliament was unconstitutional.
He read out clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124, which deal with the process of removal of a judge by Parliament. He submitted that the matter was open for judicial review till the Inquiry Committee set up by the Lok Sabha Speaker submits its report. Only then, the bar on discussing the conduct of a judge in Parliament under Article 121 is lifted, he said.
The Bench reminded Sibal that the in-house procedure originated from Ravichandran Iyer v A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995). Sibal responded that Ravichandran only referred to the moral authority of the in-house procedure and that its findings could not be discussed in public. Impeachment of a judge, he said, is a political procedure in Parliament. That stage has yet not been reached, he suggested.
The Bench pointed out that the Supreme Court was considering a different issue in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability case (whether the impeachment motion admitted in one session would survive after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha). Sibal asked what the point of the in-house procedure was, if the law favoured the release of everything prematurely, before the judge is found guilty.
Bench: Why did Justice Varma participate in the in-house inquiry?
The judges questioned why Justice Varma participated in the in-house inquiry if he believed it had no legitimacy. They pointed out that other judges had refrained from appearing before the in-house committee in the past. Sibal replied that non-appearance before the committee could be used against him.
The Bench also questioned why Justice Varma did not challenge the in-house inquiry earlier. Sibal replied that the Judge co-operated with the proceedings because he hoped that the in-house committee would find out who owned the cash found at his home “It can’t be turned against me now,” he told the Bench.
The Bench then suggested that Justice Varma need not be concerned about the in-house report if it is not worthy of being considered as reliable evidence. He could attack it on this very ground before the Inquiry Committee and Parliament. To this, Sibal said the motion has been moved based on the in-house report. Therefore, he already stood ‘convicted’ as a result of that.
Bench: What is “misbehaviour”?
Part of the hearing was centred around the meaning of the term “misbehaviour” according to the Bangalore Principles. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct are globally accepted rules that guide judges to act with honesty and independence.
Sibal questioned whether it would amount to misbehaviour if the cash were found at his outhouse. He added that while Justice Varma could not prove that the cash was not his. However, the in-house committee also did not find that it belonged to him. When the Bench pointed out that Justice Varma did not dispute that cash was found, Sibal claimed neither Justice Varma nor his staff was present when it was found.
The Bench then posed a question: what barred the Chief Justice from recommending removal to the government if a particular Judge did something prohibited by the Bangalore Principles. Sibal clarified that the government has no right to move the motion against the judge, and therefore, the Chief can’t advise the government that a judge has to be removed.
The matter will be heard again on 30 July 2025.