“Why did you appear before the inquiry panel, if you now dispute the legality of the procedure it followed?”: SC quizzes Justice Yashwant Varma

THE SUPREME COURT TODAY questioned Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, for challenging the report of a three-judge in-house committee that indicted him following the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash by Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14, 2025, from a storeroom located outside his official residence during a fire-fighting operation.

A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta and also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih asked, “Why did you appear before the (three-judge) inquiry committee? You should have raised all these points before the Court instead.”

The bench’s remarks came as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, contended that the ‘in-house inquiry’ mechanism adopted in 1999 was not to be taken recourse to or be a parallel to the procedure provided under the Constitution  and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for initiating the process of a judge’s removal for “misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Sibal argued that the process—starting with the formation of the in-house committee, followed by its May 3 report, and the May 8 recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal sent by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna—was unconstitutional. He pointed out that Articles 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, exclusively govern the removal of a judge and require a formal process initiated in Parliament.

Quoting Article 124(5), Sibal said: “Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.”

He argued that even Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct unless a formal inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act is completed and misbehaviour is established. “If Parliament itself cannot discuss a judge’s conduct without due process, how can such findings be made public through press releases or sent to the President and Prime Minister?” Sibal asked.

Responding to the May 8 communication from former CJI Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal, Sibal argued that removal proceedings are political in nature and can only be initiated by Members of Parliament, not even by the executive. This letter cannot be treated as a removal trigger, he submitted.

The bench then pointedly asked, “Who is the appointing authority?” implying that since the President appoints judges, the CJI's letter may be seen as a communication to the appointing authority, not necessarily triggering impeachment. The Court stated “You cannot dispute the incident of fire and the recovery of cash”. 

“But the cash does not belong to me,” Sibal replied, “My staff wasn’t present. They were not informed about the recovery either.”