Supreme Court Grills Justice Varma Over Petition Timing
In a high-stakes courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court on Monday delivered pointed questions to Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the judiciary’s action against him following a major cash recovery from his Delhi residence. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed strong reservations about the manner and timing of the petition, noting that it raises questions about due process, jurisdiction, and the separation of powers.
“This petition should not have been filed like this,” remarked Justice Datta, highlighting procedural missteps including errors in listing respondents. “The party is the Registrar General here, not the Secretary General,” he pointed out, underlining a lack of precision in the filing. According to the court’s records, the petition—filed under the pseudonym ‘XXX’—lists three respondents: the Union of India, and the Supreme Court of India twice.
Missing Documents and Constitutional Concerns Raised
The justices also took issue with the absence of the investigative panel’s report in the petition, despite its central role in the case. “Where is the report of the three-judge panel?” Justice Datta asked. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, responded that the report was in the public domain. But the bench was unconvinced. “You should have attached the report with your plea,” said Justice Datta, stressing the importance of completeness in such a sensitive constitutional matter.
Mr. Sibal argued that the Constitution lays out a clear process for the removal of judges, and any deviation from it undermines judicial independence. “Unless there is proven misconduct, even Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct,” he said. He further criticized the release of incriminating materials online and in the media, asserting that such actions violate constitutional protections and the dignity of the judiciary.
Bench Cites Former Chief Justice’s Letter
The bench also addressed reports of a letter written by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President, recommending Justice Varma’s removal. When Mr. Sibal implied that the letter called for impeachment, Justice Datta pushed back: “How do you know the letter asked for impeachment? The letter is not in the public domain.”
The panel’s formation followed a major controversy surrounding Justice Varma after fire services responding to a blaze at his Delhi residence discovered large amounts of unexplained cash. The incident sparked nationwide media scrutiny and allegations of corruption. The three-judge panel was set up to probe the matter, and its findings ultimately led to Justice Varma’s transfer to the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Varma Alleges Violation of Separation of Powers
In his petition, Justice Varma argues that the judiciary has overstepped its constitutional role by recommending his removal based solely on the panel’s findings. “This usurps parliamentary authority and violates the doctrine of separation of powers,” the petition states, asserting that only Parliament has the right to initiate and act on such removal processes under the Constitution.
Mr. Sibal emphasized that Justice Varma cooperated with the committee believing it would determine the origin of the cash, not assume guilt. He also questioned the link between the judge and the cash found in the residence’s outhouse. “The staff of the judge were not even present,” he noted.
Court Questions Delay in Challenging Committee
The bench was also critical of Justice Varma’s decision to wait until now to file the challenge. “Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait?” asked Justice Datta. He referenced past instances where judges had opted out of such proceedings as a form of protest or defense. Mr. Sibal replied that his client had hoped the committee would clear his name by establishing the true source of the recovered cash.
The hearing has been adjourned to Wednesday, when the court will continue to examine the constitutional and procedural questions at the heart of this unprecedented case.
Larger Implications for Judicial Independence
As the case proceeds, it raises fundamental issues about the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence. The Supreme Court’s own procedures are under scrutiny, even as it attempts to maintain the integrity of the bench. With one of its own questioning the legitimacy of the process, the outcome could have lasting implications for how allegations against judges are handled in the future.
