The Chief Justice of India’s office is “not a post office”, and the person occupying it has a duty to the nation, the Supreme Court said today, asking tough questions to Justice Yashwant Varma, who hit headlines for the massive cash recovery during a fire at his Delhi home.
Justice Varma has challenged the findings of a three-member top court panel that probed the allegations against him and recommended his removal as a judge. This was during the tenure of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
Appearing for the judge before a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the top court’s in-house committee is not empowered to recommend a judge’s removal and its ambit is limited to advising the Chief Justice. Mr Sibal cited Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act and said bypassing the rules laid down would create an extra-constitutional mechanism.
As the discussion shifted to the top court’s powers in such matters, Justice Datta said, “The office of Chief Justice is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct, CJI has the duty to forward them to the President and the Prime Minister.”
Mr Sibal argued that the Chief Justice could not have said that the misconduct against Justice Varma was proven.
When Mr Sibal said the bench has “already made up your mind”, Justice Datta responded, “If we had made up our mind, we would have kept mum and allowed you to argue. Then declared the judgment. But that is not fair justice. That is why we are speaking… Article 141 is law laid down, it has to be followed.”
Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.
Arguing against the three-judge panel report, Mr Sibal said Justice Varma’s case is no longer just a Parliamentary process, but has become “political”. The court, however, said the three-judge panel’s report is preliminary and won’t impact future proceedings.
The bench then told the judge that his conduct “does not inspire confidence”. “Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for a favourable finding and once you found it to be palpable, you came here.”
The court also asked the judge why he appeared before the panel. Mr Sibal said, “If the committee finds the money belongs to me (Justice Varma), I am fine.” To this, the court replied, “Let’s not spill something. That is not the remit of the committee to find out whose money it is.”
Justice Datta said the Chief Justice’s recommendation is not binding on Parliament. “Parliament has the power to take a call.” Mr Sibal replied, “Once a recommendation is given by CJI, which Member of Parliament will not believe?”
Mr Sibal also pointed out that Justice Varma was not heard during the in-house probe. The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment.
