E-Paper
CJI slams lawyer for improper reference to justice Varma
CJI Gavai reprimands lawyer for disrespecting Justice Varma amid controversy over charred currency notes, as impeachment motion gains political support.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Monday rebuked a lawyer in open court for referring to Justice Yashwant Varma, who has been at the centre of controversy since the alleged discovery of charred currency notes at his official residence in Delhi in March this year, without due decorum, reminding the advocate that the judge remains a sitting member of a constitutional court.
The courtroom exchange occurred when advocate Mathews J Nedumpara mentioned his pending petition seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) in connection with the alleged recovery of a huge cache of charred cash from Justice Varma’s official residence in March.
“Looks like Varma also wants this now… he also moved (court). There needs to be FIR,” Nedumpara told the CJI’s bench while requesting an expedited listing of his petition.
CJI Gavai cut him short immediately: “Is he your friend? How are you addressing him? Have some decorum in court. He is still a judge of a constitutional court.”
When Nedumpara responded that his petition has to be heard, the CJI added sternly: “Do not dictate the court,” and called the next case, refusing to hear the matter any further.
The courtroom rebuke came just days after Justice Yashwant Varma himself approached the Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the findings of the in-house judicial inquiry that held him prima facie liable for serious misconduct. The panel, appointed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, had found “strong inferential evidence” of Justice Varma’s “covert or active control” over the cash recovered from his residence.
In a detailed writ petition filed last week, Justice Varma contested the committee’s report and the subsequent recommendation sent to the President and Prime Minister on May 8, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings. Calling the findings “unsustainable” and the process deeply flawed, Justice Varma alleged that the panel acted with a predetermined narrative, reversed the burden of proof, and denied him a full and fair opportunity to defend himself.
Nedumpara’s most recent petition marks the third time he has moved the top court seeking an FIR, alleging that the Centre and Delhi Police failed in their duty to investigate a cognizable offence despite the in-house panel’s own findings criticising police inaction.
Nedumpara cited the alleged recovery of sacks of charred currency by first responders on March 14 as evidence requiring immediate police action. However, he also acknowledged a potential legal roadblock, the 1991 K Veeraswami judgment which bars registration of FIRs against sitting judges without the CJI’s prior sanction. He has urged the court to review that ruling, arguing that it impedes the criminal law from taking its natural course.
Another Supreme Court bench had earlier declined to hear a similar plea by Nedumpara in May, noting that he had not approached the relevant authorities before filing a writ petition. The court also referred to a May 8 press note confirming that the in-house panel’s report and the judge’s response had already been forwarded to the President and Prime Minister, in accordance with the established In-House Procedure.
Even as the legal contest continues, the matter has gained political traction. The Union government is preparing to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament, which began on Monday.
On Sunday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed that more than 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) had already signed the notice for Justice Varma’s removal, meeting the threshold required to move such a motion in the Lok Sabha.
“The signature [collection] is underway and it has crossed 100 already,” Rijiju said, adding that more MPs were expected to sign the notice to ensure broad political support.
According to officials familiar with the matter, the government may introduce the motion in the first week of the session. They clarified that the internal inquiry report submitted to the Supreme Court will have no direct bearing on the impeachment process in Parliament, which will proceed independently on the strength of the lawmakers’ notice and Parliament’s own procedures.
Under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, a judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court can be removed only by an order of the President after both Houses of Parliament pass a motion supported by a special majority.
The 64-page report of the in-house inquiry noted that Justice Varma’s actions “belied the trust” reposed in a constitutional court judge. It emphasised that public trust is the bedrock of judicial office, and once the presence of currency at the judge’s premises was established, the burden was on him to explain it -- a burden he failed to discharge beyond a blanket denial.
