Supreme Court reserves verdict on Justice Varma’s plea against in-house panel findings

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma — who faces an impeachment threat following the cash-discovery row — challenging the findings of the three-member in-house enquiry committee, which recommended his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

In his writ petition, Justice Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, sought to quash the communication forwarded by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, recommending action based on the in-house committee’s findings.

Appearing before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, argued that under the in-house procedure, the removal of a sitting constitutional court judge cannot be recommended, as only Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act govern the impeachment process.

Following the CJI’s communication recommending action against Justice Varma, Sibal argued that Parliament was left with no option but to initiate his removal.

To this, the Justice Datta-led Bench said, “Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct, CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister.”

Further, it remarked that the recommendation was not binding on Parliament, even as it questioned Justice Varma’s plea over delay in raising concerns about the lack of a hearing or opportunity for cross-examination during the in-house inquiry.

It added that the in-house inquiry was a preliminary and non-punitive process, not requiring strict adherence to evidentiary procedures or permitting cross-examination. (IANS)

Also Read: Supreme Court sets aside ban on cricketer Santhosh Karunakaran

Also Watch: