New Delhi, August 8: India’s Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma challenging an in-house judicial inquiry that recommended his removal after sacks of burnt currency were discovered at his residence earlier this year.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih ruled that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal validity and does not infringe upon the constitutional powers of Parliament to remove a High Court judge.
Justice Varma had argued that the inquiry, which was initiated by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and concluded in May, was an “extra-constitutional” process that violated Articles 124(5) and 218 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Rejecting the plea, the court held that the in-house procedure was a fact-finding process and not a mechanism for judicial removal. “It is fallacious to argue that the procedure is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a judge,” Justice Datta wrote in the 57-page judgment.
The bench also ruled that the procedure is supported by precedent and has legal backing under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. “The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean, and unpolluted,” the judgment said.
Justice Varma’s challenge came after a fire at his residence led to the recovery of sacks filled with burnt currency, prompting the in-house investigation.
While Varma claimed the procedure violated his fundamental rights and judicial independence, the court ruled that no judge can claim immunity from accountability. “A judge by his conduct of being fair and just is supposed to earn trust and respect… if allegations are substantiated in inquiry, he cannot claim immunity,” the court said.
The court also addressed the public disclosure of the cash recovery images, noting that uploading photos and videos of the incident on the Supreme Court’s website was not a procedural requirement. However, it said Justice Varma had failed to contest this action in time and had fully cooperated with the inquiry process.
Dismissing the petition, the court concluded that there was “nothing more pending” at its end and that Justice Varma was free to pursue legal remedies as and when appropriate.
The in-house inquiry report was forwarded by the former Chief Justice to the President and Prime Minister, consistent with the role of the Chief Justice in ensuring institutional integrity, the court added.
