New Delhi: The in-house inquiry conducted against Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in the cash-at-home scandal was not foul of any provisions of the Constitution, nor abrogated his fundamental rights, the Supreme Court held Thursday. The top court has dismissed the judge’s petition against former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s move to recommend action against him to the President and Prime Minister.
Then CJI Khanna had based his decision on the in-house inquiry report that had indicted Justice Varma. This panel had been set up to probe the alleged discovery of burnt Indian currency notes in March, after a fire had broken out in the outhouse of the judge’s official residence in Delhi while he was serving in the high court there.
Except for the uploading of the video footage showing the burnt currency notes, which were found by a team of firemen controlling the fire, the top court declared there was no deviation in the procedure adopted by the internal three-member panel that probed the incident.
However, the bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Augustine Masih did not extend the benefit of the highlighted procedural irregularity to Justice Varma, saying that the high court judge did not question this action at the opportune moment. Further, it pointed out, in his petition before SC, the judge did not claim any relief against the uploading of the video back when the incident had come to light.
Moreover, the bench emphasised, Justice Varma had subjected himself to the inquiry by participating in the in-house proceedings. His decision to move the top court belatedly, particularly after voluntarily submitting himself to the inquiry panel did not, raised doubts over his conduct, it observed.
Addressing Justice Varma’s claim that CJI Khanna did not afford him an opportunity before sending his recommendation to President and Prime Minister, the bench said that the same was not required under the procedure. It refused to consider the example that was given by the high court judge’s counsel during the arguments, and held that an instance in the past does not mean Justice Varma can claim it as a matter of right.
The Supreme Court’s judgment comes at a time when a motion to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma is pending in Parliament. Members of both Houses have submitted notices to their respective presiding officers.
The apex court’s verdict on Justice Varma’s petition specifically notes that he has the right to raise all his contentions in the impeachment proceedings, if initiated. This means he can agitate his objections as and when he is called to present his case.
For clarity, the motion pending in Parliament is not required to refer to the report by the in-house inquiry committee set up by then CJI Khanna. This panel was constituted in terms of the judicially evolved in-house mechanism to look into charges of misdemeanour or allegations of corruption against a sitting judge.
The impeachment motion in Parliament is an independent legislative process that entails a separate inquiry by a committee that will hold a fresh hearing in the matter. This committee, according to the law, is headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, and comprises a sitting chief justice of a high court, and a distinguished jurist.
Also Read: Courts can’t be used to fight political battles—why SC slapped Rs 10 lakh fine on AIADMK MP
Five questions
While deciding Justice Varma’s plea, the bench of Justices Datta and Masih framed five questions, and adjudicated each one of them by answering them against the high court judge.
To the two questions surrounding the in-house inquiry, and whether it was a parallel extra-constitutional mechanism, the bench held in the negative.
The next question framed was on whether the in-house procedure violated different provisions of the Constitution that deal with the removal of a sitting judge, and if it affected the judge’s fundamental right. The bench held there was no violation, contrary to what was suggested by Justice Varma’s legal team.
The fourth question was whether the in-house procedure acted in terms of the established guidelines, and the fifth one was if the requirement under the in-house mechanism to forward the inquiry report to the President and Prime Minister was unconstitutional.
“We have held that it is not constitutional,” said Justice Datta, reading out parts of the order in open court.
‘CJI has authority to take necessary action’
The judgment touched upon a sitting judge’s conduct, saying they should be “fair and just”, and “earn for themselves as well as the judiciary the trust and respect of the members of the bar as well as the litigants and all other stakeholders.”
“If a complaint of misconduct committed by a judge is received and if at an inquiry conducted under the procedure, the allegations against such a judge are found to have sufficient substance, he cannot claim any immunity—either by citing abrogation of his Fundamental Rights or breach of the constitutional scheme for removal of a judge by initiating proceedings for impeachment—that his conduct is not open to be commented upon by the Committee or even by the CJI,” the bench noted.
Justice Datta, writing for the bench, underlined the authority of the CJI to act in such circumstances, said that “the CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted”, and that “it is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action”.
The bench further said that while it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate the process to remove a judge, “the CJI, upon being informed of a judge’s remissness does have the authority—moral, ethical and legal—to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact”, adding that “any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear”.
The court said it was unaware “of what the CJI remarked while forwarding the report of the committee…to the President and the Prime Minister”.
Even if the CJI has reiterated the finding of the committee report, and recommended initiation of proceedings for removal of the petitioner from office, such a recommendation cannot be impeached on any valid and legal ground, it added. “Such a recommendation would be only for the eyes of the President and the Prime Minister alone and not anyone else.”
The top court upheld the CJI’s discretion to make observations while forwarding the in-house enquiry report to the President and Prime Minister. This, it explained, is “keeping in view such concerns (about impact on the credibility of the institution) and the legal position of the President being the ultimate appointing authority of judges and the Prime Minister being the head of the Council of Ministers, upon whose aid and advice the President acts under our Constitution, coupled with receipt of complaints from the office of the President that we find the provision in paragraph 7(ii) of the (in-house) procedure requiring the CJI to write to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be quite in order, legal and valid”.
A CJI, the court asserted, is not to be “regarded as a post office”, rejecting Justice Varma’s contention that the inquiry report should only be routed through the CJI without his observations.
On the in-house procedure, the court discussed the multiple cases in which it has been reaffirmed, and thereby, become a law of the land. “The procedure that has been laid down… is fair and just which does not compromise judicial independence either, a basic feature of our Constitution,” the court said.
With regard to leakage of the video of the burnt cash, the bench observed, “We wish to observe here that placing incriminating evidence available against a judge under probe in the public domain is not a measure provided in the procedure, either expressly or by implication. The inquiry under the procedure is for the information and satisfaction of the CJI and the report of inquiry is confidential and, therefore, such report cannot be made public.”
This is an updated version of the report.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: SC ends ‘inhuman’ decades-old practice of hand-pulled carts in Matheran, suggests e-rickshaw route