Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Justice Yashwant Varma’s Petition Over Burnt Cash Case

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in the case concerning burnt cash found at the Delhi government residence of Justice Yashwant Varma.

Justice Verma brought the petition before the Court, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal representing him.

During the hearing, Sibal requested the Court to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench, emphasising its constitutional implications.

Justice Deepankar Datta, who presided over the bench, questioned why Sibal had not made this request earlier and why the Constitution Bench should hear the case.

Sibal explained that the delay was due to the public release of tapes, which had already damaged his client’s reputation.

Justice Datta acknowledged the concerns raised about procedural fairness, agreeing that Sibal’s arguments had merit regarding the process.

Discussion on Impeachment and Legal Authority

Sibal argued that impeachment is a parliamentary process and asserted that the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) recommendation for impeachment was improper.

He stressed that criminal proceedings involve formal prosecution and designation as an accused, which was not appropriately handled.

Justice Datta responded that the government may have the authority to remove officials under certain laws, but no such law currently exists. He said the Court would consider any such legislation if introduced.

The judge further noted that the judiciary introduced internal procedures in 1999 to assess possible actions against judges.

Justice Datta clarified that the CJI is not merely an administrative figure but has national responsibilities, including recommending action if credible evidence of judicial misconduct exists.

Sibal insisted that in-house inquiries are confidential, a claim disputed by Justice Datta.

The judge asked whether any procedural lapses occurred during the impeachment process and whether public reports biased parliamentary committees.

Sibal denied suggesting any committee bias but said that public accusations against Justice Varma, based on Supreme Court website information, had harmed him.

The Court emphasised that the petitioners should have approached the Court sooner and that matters cannot be decided based on media reports.

Justice Datta criticised the delay, stating it seemed the petitioners awaited a favourable outcome before seeking judicial intervention.

He also questioned if public exposure would not prompt the Lok Sabha Speaker to act, observing that impeachment is a political decision.

Clarification on FIR and Judicial Accountability

Justice Datta reiterated that initiating any criminal investigation or First Information Report (FIR) against a judge without the CJI’s approval is impermissible.

The Chief Justice’s internal inquiry remains the primary procedure in cases involving judicial conduct.

The Supreme Court’s decision to reserve its verdict in this high-profile case underscores the complexities of judicial accountability, constitutional law, and parliamentary procedure.

The Court continues to balance procedural fairness, confidentiality, and the need for transparency in addressing allegations against sitting judges.

The hearing highlighted the role of the CJI in safeguarding judicial integrity and clarified the boundaries of legal and political processes such as impeachment.

The verdict, once delivered, will set important precedents for future cases involving judicial misconduct and constitutional governance.

Also Read: Rakesh Pandey Babua Re-Elected Bar Association President; Akhilesh Sharma Wins Gen Secy Post