‘XXX v. Union of India’ plea: Supreme Court blasts Justice Yashwant Varma's plea in cash row

Justice Yashwant Varma's plea, which does not identify his name, seeks quashing of the in-house panel inquiry report into the cash discovery row.

The Supreme Court on Monday lambasted Allahabad high court Justice Yashwant Varma over his plea challenging the findings of an internal panel's report against him in the cash discovery row. Varma's plea is titled without his name as "XXX v. The Union of India".

Half-burn cash was discovered from a store room in Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence after a fire incident on March 14. (ANI file photo)

In the in-house inquiry into the incident of the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from Varma's official residence, the apex court asked him how he could question the report after having participated in the process, news agency PTI reported.

The panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery from his official home during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.

The apex court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih asked Justice Varma why he waited for the inquiry to be completed and the report to be released.

"Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first (sic)," the SC bench asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing Justice Varma.

Sibal said that the appearance before the committee could not be held against him. "I appeared because I thought committee would find out who the cash belongs to," he added.

The top court made these remarks while hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of the report by the in-house panel, which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row.

However, the plea does not reveal Justice Varma's identity. It is titled, "XXX v. The Union of India".

The Supreme Court further questioned Varma about the parties he had made in his plea, saying he should have filed the in-house panel report with his plea.

"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," the bench said.

Sibal told the court that there was a process under Article 124 (Establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court), noting that a judge could not be the subject matter of a public debate.

"The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme," Sibal added.

He submitted before the top court that the in-house inquiry committee report could not form the basis for Justice Varma's impeachment motion.

However, the SC bench refused to look at anything that was not a part of the record.

"You need to satisfy us based on the petition and the four corners of law. Whom did CJI sent this letter to? President is the one who appoints the judge. Prime Minister because 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?" the top court asked.

The Supreme Court asked Sibal to return with one page of bullet points asked him to rectify the memo of parties.

Following this, the top court bench posted the matter for further hearing for July 30.

CJI's impeachment suggestion for Justice Varma

Varma had sought the dismissal of a May 8 recommendation given by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, where he urged the Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Allahabad HC Justice.

In his plea, Varma said that the inquiry "reversed the burden of proof", requiring him to probe and disprove the allegations levelled against him.

Justice Varma further alleged that the in-house panel's findings were based on pre-conceived narrative. He said the inquiry timelines were driven exclusively by the urge to conclude the proceedings soon, even if it was at the expense of "procedural fairness".

His plea argued that the panel drew findings without giving him a full and fair hearing.

The in-house panel had said that Justice Varma and his family members had secretive or active control over the store where the huge cache of semi-burnt cash was found after a fire incident. They said that this proved his misconduct, which is a serious enough offence to seek his removal.

The three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the probe for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and went through the scene of the accidental fire that started late at night at Justice Varma's residence March 14.

Following the report, CJI Khanna had written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending the judge's impeachment.

(with PTI inputs)