The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, expressed serious reservations over the conduct of Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged an in-house panel report that found him guilty of misconduct related to a large cache of burnt cash discovered at his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.

Hearing his plea — filed under the anonymised title XXX v. The Union of India — a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned Justice Varma’s decision to appear before the in-house committee and only now approach the apex court. “Your conduct does not inspire confidence,” the bench remarked, asking why the judge did not challenge the inquiry process earlier if he believed it was flawed, as per news agency PTI.

The bench also said, “You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there.”

‘CJI Is Not a Post Office’: Supreme Court

Referring to the origins of the in-house inquiry mechanism, the court pointed out that it had been in place since 1999 and was endorsed by previous Supreme Court decisions. Justice Datta observed that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) cannot merely act as a conduit. “The Chief Justice of India is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If material comes to him regarding misconduct, he is only to inform the president and the prime minister. Nothing more. If on the basis of the material, it is found that misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this court that CJI has the power to do so,” Justice Datta said, as quoted by PTI.

The court has reserved its order on Justice Varma’s petition, which challenges both the in-house inquiry and the CJI’s recommendation for his removal.

‘In-House Inquiry Not a Substitute for Judges (Inquiry) Act’: Kapil Sibal

Representing Justice Varma, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the in-house mechanism lacked constitutional validity and procedural safeguards provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Referring to Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, Sibal asserted that the removal of a judge must strictly adhere to the process defined therein.

He contended, “The in-house inquiry is merely an administrative procedure and it lacks the safeguards of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, such as strict standards of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses.” Sibal said the recommendation by the CJI for Varma’s removal, based on this process, was unconstitutional. “A recommendation for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent,” he added, as per PTI.

He also noted the reputational damage Justice Varma suffered due to a tape being uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website, saying, “What would I come to court for?”

Justice Datta countered, “The tapes have been put on the website. Does that mean everything is vitiated and you will go scot-free?” He added that merely citing political statements based on the committee’s report does not invalidate the process. “We cannot go by newspaper reports,” the bench observed.

Petition for FIR Also Heard

The top court also heard a separate petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. Justice Datta asked Nedumpara whether he had first approached the police with a formal complaint before coming to court. The court has also reserved its order on this matter.