Today, On 28th July, the Supreme Court asked Justice Varma about the credibility of the inquiry panel’s report and scheduled the matter for Wednesday, after strong constitutional objections were raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.
New Delhi: During a crucial hearing in the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly argued that any discussion about a judge’s conduct must follow a strict constitutional process.
He was presenting his case before a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta.
At the beginning, Justice Datta pointed out issues with how the petition had been filed.
He said,
“This petition should not have been filed like this… please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is Supreme Court as your grievance is against the process mentioned. We don’t expect the senior counsel to go through the causetitle.”
Mr. Sibal responded by referring to the Constitution.
He said,
“Please see Article 124(5). Without following the process this cannot be done. It has been held by the five judges of this court. The constitution bench judgment in judges sub-committee also says till such process is followed judges conduct cannot be discussed anywhere.”
He also highlighted that,
“The tape is released on first day. Man stands convicted. Questions asked whose cash is this? Then there are adverse inferences… why did you not object to the transfer…”
Justice Datta then asked about the report, stating,
“Where is the report? If you want to argue the report… it must be on record.”
Sibal assured,
“We will attach it to the plea.”
Advocate Nedumpara said,
“I have attached.”
But Justice Datta replied,
“I saw that… but why should I go through it. Mr Sibal should have given. Please furnish that. Now address on point of law that procedure adopted violates the Constitution.”
Sibal then read Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution and cited several judgments showing that a judge’s conduct cannot be looked into unless the proper constitutional process is followed.
He explained,
“State at which bar of Article 121 is lifted, it is then when Parliament can intervene and not before that.”
He further added,
“The constitutional scheme appears to be that unless the misconduct etc is proven on the ground of proven misbehaviour etc… There cannot be a discussion of judges’ conduct even in the Parliament. If the constitution scheme is that such conduct cannot be discussed even in Parliament till such misconduct is proven… then it is difficult to believe that such an action is acceptable elsewhere. All the release of tapes, putting on website, and a public furore consequential thereto… media accusations against judges… findings by the public… discussing conduct of judges… all are prohibited. If the procedure allows them to do that, then it is violative of the Constitution Bench Judgment.”
The Court then asked,
“But did it say in-house procedure cannot be done?”
Sibal replied,
“But can that report be in public domain and made politicised?”
Justice Datta also questioned,
“Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance on a favourable order there first? You are a constitutional authority. Why did you not do it, and can you not say you did not know this? You should have come then and there and got an order!”
He also stated,
“But it does not say that the inquiry committee cannot look into this…”
Sibal clarified,
“But that cannot be the basis of impeachment.”
To this, Justice Datta asked,
“But who said it is.”
Sibal then referred to a communication,
“Letter of CJI Khanna.”
However, Justice Datta responded,
“That you will not get. There was only a press release… we will not look at anything which is not a part of the record. You need to satisfy us based on the petition and the four corners of law.”
Justice Datta further asked,
“To whom did the CJI send this letter? The President is the one who appoints the judge. The Prime Minister because the President acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers. So sending these letters… how does that mean it is for the House to impeach…”
To explain his point, Sibal said,
“Suppose judge commits a criminal offence… FIR… sanction granted and then go ahead. Like for suppose being drunk letter is not written to the President!” Justice Datta countered, “But it is an incidence of misbehaviour.”
Sibal argued,
“But if cash is found in the outhouse… the cash belongs to whom?? How can that be attributed to me.”
Justice Datta noted,
“See your statements…”
He reminded,
“Police, FIR, staff all was there and cash was found.”
Sibal replied,
“None of my staff was there and the staff also said they were not there.”
Justice Datta said,
“No no you have not seen the finding of the committee… but if you are on law that this inquiry could not have been held.”
Sibal repeated,
“But that cannot be the basis of the impeachment.”
Justice Datta clarified,
“It is something to say that procedure was transgressed and another thing to say that procedure was followed or not. Sanctity of procedure has been upheld. Recommendations is for initiation of proceedings.”
Sibal raised a concern,
“If they don’t move impeachment motion what will happen?”
Justice Datta replied,
“What will happen?? Suppose in a case there are evidences galore. Citizen comes to Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha… no action as per you… and then citizen comes to the Court… Then?”
Sibal responded,
“Then in-house procedure can be followed…”
Justice Datta remarked,
“Oh then we come again to the in-house procedure… And then proceedings begin… so Parliament cannot be directed…”
Sibal said,
“No no”
Justice Datta asked,
“So you say that committee report not worth it?”
Sibal answered,
“No it’s not.”
Justice Datta pushed further,
“Then why challenge? Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed… why did you wait. Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past.”
Sibal explained,
“But that cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought committee would find out who the cash belongs to.”
Before concluding, Justice Datta gave some instructions,
“Come with one page bullet point next time that these are your pointers. Correct the memo of parties also. Verification is not needed as per SC rules?”
He also directed Advocate Nedumpara,
“Verification of pleadings… this I am telling to Mr Nedumpara… your plea is such that you were present when fire broke out and you found out the currency notes. No reference to paragraph etc.”
Justice Datta recalled a personal experience,
“I was once appearing before Justice SB Sinha. The plea had facts and law in my favour. It was dismissed because it was added that facts were true to my knowledge, and it was not so as per him.”
The matter has been listed for hearing on Wednesday as Justice Datta said,
“List this case on Wednesday.”
The matter arose from a fire at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi on March 14, which allegedly led to the discovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash. Videos surfaced online showing bundles of currency notes burning in the fire, which led to immediate suspicions of corruption.
Subsequently, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna invoked the in-house procedure and constituted a three-member committee to investigate the matter.
The committee comprised:
- Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana HC)
- Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh HC)
- Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka HC)
The panel began its probe on March 25 and submitted its final report on May 3, which was forwarded to the President of India by CJI Khanna with a recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal from office.
Earlier, Justice Varma has now approached the Supreme Court, contesting the legality and fairness of the entire process. His plea makes several serious claims:
- The invocation of in-house procedures was improper in the absence of a formal complaint.
- The press release disclosing the proceedings and allegations violated confidentiality and led to a media trial.
- The committee allegedly did not inform him of its procedural rules, thus violating principles of natural justice.
- He claims he was denied an opportunity to respond to the evidence.
- Regarding the cash discovery, he argues that the ownership and exact amount were never properly established, leaving a major gap in the committee’s findings.
Also Read: Impeachment Process: A Critical Look At Justice Shekhar Yadav And Justice Yashwant Varma
Furthermore, Justice Varma alleges that then CJI Khanna pressured him to either resign or opt for voluntary retirement, warning him of the removal process.
Chief Justice BR Gavai, who initially was scheduled to hear the case, recused himself, citing his prior involvement in the preliminary stages of the in-house probe.
He stated,
“It will not be possible for me to take up this matter because I was also part of the committee.”
Case Title: XXX v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Yashwant Varma