Kapil Sibal said the Supreme Court’s internal report on Justice Varma lacks constitutional backing and can’t be used for impeachment. He accused the government of misusing the process and shielding judges selectively.
New Delhi: Today, on July 4, Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal has raised serious questions about the Supreme Court’s internal inquiry report on Justice Yashwant Varma, calling it constitutionally irrelevant.
At a press conference on Saturday, Sibal said that under the Constitution of India, any investigation into the conduct of a High Court or Supreme Court judge must be done strictly as per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and not through any in-house procedure of the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Kapil Sibal Wins SCBA President Elections
According to Sibal,
“Under Article 124 of the Constitution, if 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha submit a notice for moving a motion (for impeachment), then a judges’ inquiry committee is set up under the Judges Inquiry Act.”
He emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to create such a committee.
He added,
“Parliament can make a law, under that law, an investigation will be done, and after the probe, a decision will be given on misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.”
Sibal strongly objected to the government referring to the in-house inquiry report, stating,
“The Constitution does not recognise any in-house procedure.”
He questioned the legitimacy of ministers making public remarks against Justice Varma based on a report that holds no constitutional weight.
He said,
“On what basis are you saying that Justice Varma is guilty? Ministers are making remarks to this effect,”
He further clarified that the role of initiating an impeachment motion lies with the members of Parliament, not the government.
Sibal said,
“Parliament states that the motion for impeachment will be brought by members and not the government,”
Referring to Union Minister Kiren Rijiju’s recent statement, he questioned its legality:
“How does a minister make the statement that ‘I will move the motion’? The government cannot rely on an in-house procedure which has nothing to do with Article 124 of the Constitution.”
Sibal was also critical of the decision to circulate the in-house report publicly in this case.
He asserted,
“No government or member of Parliament can look at that report and come to any conclusion,”
He said such reports were never made public in the past.
He asked,
“So why did this in-house report become public in this case when the previous ones weren’t?”
The controversy began after a fire incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in Delhi in March 2024, which led to the discovery of several charred bundles of banknotes in the outhouse. Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court, denied any knowledge of the cash.
A three-member committee appointed under the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure recorded statements from various witnesses and submitted a report that reportedly indicted the judge.
ALSO READ: CJI Chandrachud Congratulates Kapil Sibal on Being Elected as SCBA President
However, Justice Varma refused to resign even after then-Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, reportedly advised him to step down.
Consequently, the judge was repatriated to his parent High Court in Allahabad and has not been assigned any judicial work since.
Sibal also questioned the inconsistent manner in which impeachment motions are being handled by the government.
Referring to the impeachment notice moved by opposition MPs against Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court for allegedly making communal remarks during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event, Sibal alleged that the government is deliberately delaying the process.
He said the notice was submitted on December 13, 2024, and was duly received by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
Sibal said,
“I saw the statement of Kiren Rijiju, he said that the impeachment motion of Yashwant Varma will be moved on day one of the session, and in three months, after the constitution of the judges’ inquiry committee, it will be passed. He said that there should be no delay. Three months had gone by… (since) we gave the motion of Shekhar Yadav,”
He also raised concerns over the Rajya Sabha Secretariat’s communication with him regarding the authenticity of his signature on the motion.
He said,
“They say that they had sent mails on March 7, March 13 and May 1. If 50 members of the Rajya Sabha agree, the motion should be admitted… I did not get mail on March 7, I got it on March 13… It did not talk about my signature, they asked me to come for interaction with the chairman, the same letter came on May 1,”
He questioned the need for such interactions if there was no issue with the signature.
“If there was no problem with the authentication of the signature, then why was he called for an interaction?” he asked.
Sibal added that he had been present in Parliament and even delivered speeches during that time, but was not approached directly.
He said,
“I had also made speeches in Parliament after the said emails to him, but was never asked to meet the Chair when he was present in the House during the Budget session,”
He accused the government of shielding Justice Yadav, suggesting that the delay might be intentional due to the judge’s scheduled retirement in 2026.
ALSO READ: Kapil Sibal: Constitution’s Basic Structure Being Violated Every Day Without Amendments
“He accused the government of protecting Justice Yadav as his retirement was nearing in 2026, and it wanted to delay the issue.”
He also alleged a political motive:
“There is not even a need to investigate this because he himself is admitting to the statement.”
Highlighting the contrast between the treatment of both judges, Sibal said,
“As far as Yashwant Varma is concerned, they say that they would move the Motion on the first day and wrap it up within three months. Why are there two different parameters? Because Justice Shekhar Yadav has made statements which they perhaps agree with.”
The Monsoon session of Parliament is scheduled to start on July 21 and conclude on August 21. According to the Judges Inquiry Act, once an impeachment motion is admitted in either House of Parliament, the Speaker or the Chairman must constitute a three-member inquiry committee.
This committee must include the Chief Justice of India or a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a “distinguished jurist”.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
