Today, On 30th July, Supreme Court questioned Justice Yashwant Varma’s conduct, saying, “Chief Justice is not a post office, he also has duties towards the nation,” while examining the constitutional challenge to the in-house procedure for judicial misconduct.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argue that the in-house procedure followed by the judiciary for probing allegations against sitting judges cannot lead to removal proceedings.
The matter was heard by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta.
At the very beginning of the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi politely requested, “Can we hear this matter next week..” However, Justice Dipankar Datta firmly responded, “No no let us go on,” indicating the bench’s decision to proceed without any delay.
Kapil Sibal began his arguments by informing the court that he had already submitted his points on the constitutional issue. He clarified that the petitioner was not challenging the in-house procedure as a method of fact-finding, as long as it did not result in the initiation of formal proceedings.
He further clarified,
“The judge does not challenge CJI power to direct not to allocate judicial work to the judge concerned. So what are we challenging. On Article 124 read with judges enquiry act occupies field of removal of judges and surpassing it would create parallel and extra- constitutional mechanism.”
Kapil Sibal argued that if the in-house procedure leads to the initiation of a judge’s removal process, it would go against the provisions of Article 124. He maintained that the in-house process is meant only to offer recommendations or advice and does not carry the authority to initiate proceedings.
Emphasizing its administrative nature, he pointed out that the mechanism is not legally binding and does not require the committee to follow formal rules of evidence. He warned that turning such an advisory into a basis for initiating proceedings would be extremely damaging.
Also Read: Cash Discovery Row| Centre Initiates Impeachment Against Justice Yashwant Varma
Justice Datta responded,
“So as per Article 124 and Judges enquiry act are the only ones for removing a judge. That’s all you say. the in house process has been affirmed by the court in three judgments. It has its origin in Iyer..what relief can we grant if we are with you?”
Kapil Sibal urged the court to declare the committee’s recommendation legally void. When the Supreme Court asked what the consequence of such a declaration would be and whether the proceedings would then continue, he responded that he had no objection to that course of action.
Justice Datta then directed,
“Show me judges protection act and Read the provision of judges protection act now.”
After Sibal read out the relevant portion, Justice Datta questioned,
“Why cannot in house process be included in there ? It is just a recommendation.”
Kapil Sibal began to respond by referring to the act of recommending a judge’s removal, but the court interjected, observing that if the earlier decisions in the cases of Iyer, Jaising, and Dinakaran were upheld as correctly decided, it would conclude the matter.
The bench added that beyond those instances, the position had not been tested elsewhere, and therefore, the Supreme Court holds the authority to initiate civil or criminal action. In response, Sibal clarified that criminal action refers to granting sanction for prosecution and formally treating the judge as an accused.
Justice Datta pointed out,
“If someone wants to register FIR against judge they have to approach the Supreme Court. This means non-punitive process contemplated by in-house proceeding falls under otherwise of protection act..suppose district judge faces some allegations.. but the committee says it is not criminal.. so what can court do.. how does transfers happen or judicial work is withdrawn.”
He further remarked,
“You should have assisted us on the Judges Protection Act and it is prima facie … Law is there. Law is there. We are not pinning you down on why you came so late. This Section 3(2) of the act is the complete answer to your submission.”
Sibal replied,
“On why we didn’t come earlier…Tape was released and my reputation was already damaged.”
To this, Justice Datta responded,
“But as per you it is a constitutional issue…is it not and that it is beyond the remit of the judges ? Then you should have approached.”
The judge remarked,
“If under law centre is empowered to remove a judge they can. But there is no such law and if they make the law we will test that. Don’t come on central government come on sc and HC.”
Sibal responded firmly,
“Sorry you cannot tell me this.. it is an interpretation issue and that is why central govt issue is important.”
Justice Datta countered,
“How does it apply. There is no law In house procedure is established.”
Kapil Sibal assured the bench that he would return the next day fully prepared to address the questions raised. Referring to a previous judgment, he pointed out that the court had earlier held that self-regulation within the judiciary is the only method that can be considered and implemented.
Justice Datta remarked,
“In house process was placed in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. Chief justice is not a post office and he also has some duties towards the nation. If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct he can inform that and that he has informed the President and Prime Minister thats all.”
Sibal responded,
“It was to fill the gnawing gap..if you have already made up your mind..”
Justice Datta said,
“We would have kept mum and allowed you to argue. Then declare judgment. But that is not fair justice. That is why we are speaking… Ravichandran does not apply since had demitted office. Article 141 is law laid down.. it has to be followed.”
Justice Datta asked ,
“When Vishakha was delivered was it not law ? What are you saying ?”
Justice Dipankar Datta then directed the proceedings towards the judgment in the case of Additional District Judge X, stating that they had reviewed it. As Kapil Sibal began reading from the judgment, the judge encouraged him to continue reading further, pointing out that he would soon reach the part containing Justice Khehar’s observations.
When Sibal slightly smiled, Justice Datta remarked,
“Now laugh at Justice Khehar’s Judgment. You could have just said you agree with it. Parliament acts independently. If parliament admits the motion and if any inquiry committee is set up.. you know who can be members of the committee.”
He advised,
“Do not take us to the report. Confine yourself to the constitutional challenge.”
Sibal said,
“Please see the statements by the political parties ..but that we would not have moved the motion of inquiry committee was not probing this.”
Justice Datta replied,
“This is a preliminary report and cannot impact future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports.”
Sibal added,
“But I cannot assail the committee report there.”
Justice Datta pointed out,
“If you challenge the constitutionality of the provisions you should have come early..you say you are not heard and then there is delay. Whatever observations you are getting now you could have got then.”
Sibal asserted,
“But it is about my fundamental rights. I can raise the points now.”
But the judge stated,
“You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only parliament can do it you should have come then and there..the points you are raising are major but it could been raised before and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. You don’t want something to spill here. Let parliament decide. Why should we decide whether it is your money or not. That was not the remit of the committee.”
Sibal said,
“In this case there was no complaint. In a full-fledged inquiry after a committee is set up.. then removal takes place. Cross examination etc happens then. In this inquiry there is no such procedure.”
Justice Datta responded,
“This is a preliminary inquiry and there is no question of cross examination.”
Sibal asked,
“Then how can you recommend impeachment?”
Justice Datta replied,
“So this point should have been raised then That you were denied cross examination.”
Justice Datta elaborated,
“If CJI thinks this matter should be reported.. he does that. On basis of this report he can transfer or judicial work withdrawn. CJI recommendation is not binding. Parliament has the power to take a call.”
Kapil Sibal objected by pointing out that the letter clearly mentioned there was material to initiate proceedings, which, according to him, was equivalent to starting an impeachment process. He also highlighted that the judge concerned was given an option to either accept a transfer or resign, indicating that the process of removal had effectively been initiated.
Justice Datta remarked,
“What was unlawful here? He has exactly stuck to the point and followed the in house procedure.”
Kapil Sibal reiterated that the core issue being challenged was the process itself. Justice Dipankar Datta responded that the court would examine and decide on that challenge. Sibal, however, expressed doubt about the likely outcome.
Justice Datta emphasized that while the decision to proceed or not with removal is ultimately a political one, the judiciary must ensure that the process followed sends a clear and fair message to the public. When Sibal argued that the procedure must also be just and said he would address the relevance of the Judges Protection Act, the court noted that this should have already been done.
In response, Sibal maintained that the process could still be challenged under Art.
Supreme Court said,
“Now after we tell you that you say we will challenge. No challenge will be allowed now Tell us why judges protection act does not apply. It applies because of Article 141..how does it affect article 21.”
Justice Datta clarified,
“The law is the procedure and in-house procedure is in place for the last 30 years. We judges know how conduct is regulated. It’s not that you act in judicial capacity to strike down law. You strive to uphold it.”
Justice Datta turned to Advocate Nedumpara and asked,
“Now Mr Nedumapra how you got inquiry report.”
Nedumpara replied,
“It is with Live Law.”
Justice Datta said,
“Then we will issue notice to Live Law”
He was then instructed to file an affidavit. After that, he said, “Argue now.”
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta questioned Advocate Nedumpara about his allegations against the police. He asked him to turn to page 18 of the writ petition and point out the exact line where it showed that the police failed to act on his representation, noting that there was a direct allegation made. Justice Datta further pressed him, asking how the police were expected to act.
As Nedumpara tried to respond, requesting to answer calmly, Justice Datta began explaining the legal position under the Criminal Procedure Code regarding cognizable offences. However, Nedumpara interrupted, saying he already knew the law.
Justice Datta firmly said,
“Let me complete, how do you know. Suppose if you inform police does not.. you can approach magistrate.. .. then you can say that Veeraswami judgment was not followed..where is your police complaint. If you have not approached police don’t say all this.”
Also Read: Impeachment Process: A Critical Look At Justice Shekhar Yadav And Justice Yashwant Varma
Kapil Sibal submitted that, under the in-house procedure, the concerned judge is always given an opportunity to be heard. Justice Dipankar Datta immediately asked who exactly hears the judge during the process. Sibal replied that it is the Chief Justice of India.
Supporting this point, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi referred to the Soumitra Sen case from Kolkata, stating that it clearly mentioned the judge was called and heard.
Concluding the session, Justice Datta directed the court staff to call out the next matter and declared that the judgment in this case was reserved.
On the evening of March 14th, a fire erupted at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence. While Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, his daughter and elderly mother were present when the fire broke out. Firefighters responding to the scene reportedly discovered a substantial amount of unaccounted cash.
A video subsequently emerged depicting bundles of currency engulfed in flames, sparking allegations of corruption against Justice Varma. He refuted these accusations, suggesting a conspiracy to discredit him.
In response, the Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) launched an internal investigation, forming a three-member committee on March 22nd to conduct an inquiry.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Sidharth Luthra, along with Advocates George Pothan Poothicote, Manisha Singh, and others, appeared on behalf of Justice Verma.
Case Details: XXX v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025