NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday raised several questions while hearing Justice Yashwant Varma 's plea seeking to invalidate an in-house inquiry committee 's report that indicted him over a large quantity of burnt cash found at his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi high court judge.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, asking, "Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?"
The bench also expressed concern over the parties named in the petition and observed that the in-house inquiry report should have been filed along with the plea.
In response, Sibal argued that Article 124 lays out the process and said, "The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme."
The court then directed Sibal to file one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, and posted the matter for hearing on July 30.
Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him.
In his plea, Justice Varma claimed the inquiry had "reversed the burden of proof", effectively requiring him to disprove the allegations instead of the panel proving them. He alleged that the panel's findings followed a “preconceived narrative,” and that the inquiry was rushed “even at the expense of procedural fairness”.
According to the petition, the panel reached adverse conclusions without granting him a full and fair hearing.
The report, prepared by a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana high court, concluded that Justice Varma and his family had "covert or active control" over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was discovered, amounting to serious misconduct warranting removal.
The panel conducted the inquiry over ten days, examined 55 witnesses, and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 pm on March 14 at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge; he currently serves in the Allahabad high court.
Following the findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, asking, "Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?"
The bench also expressed concern over the parties named in the petition and observed that the in-house inquiry report should have been filed along with the plea.
In response, Sibal argued that Article 124 lays out the process and said, "The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme."
The court then directed Sibal to file one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, and posted the matter for hearing on July 30.
Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him.
In his plea, Justice Varma claimed the inquiry had "reversed the burden of proof", effectively requiring him to disprove the allegations instead of the panel proving them. He alleged that the panel's findings followed a “preconceived narrative,” and that the inquiry was rushed “even at the expense of procedural fairness”.
According to the petition, the panel reached adverse conclusions without granting him a full and fair hearing.
The report, prepared by a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana high court, concluded that Justice Varma and his family had "covert or active control" over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was discovered, amounting to serious misconduct warranting removal.
The panel conducted the inquiry over ten days, examined 55 witnesses, and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 pm on March 14 at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge; he currently serves in the Allahabad high court.
Following the findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
You may also like
'Ryanair wouldn't refund £827 flights unless my husband did it - but he's dead'
UK street on lockdown after 'stabbing' sparks huge police response
IPO-Bound Amagi's Loss Narrows 72% To INR 69 Cr In FY25
Coleen Nolan takes on new project away from Loose Women amid cuts
BT warning for anyone who still has UK landline in their home
