Last Updated:
In his plea, Justice Varma termed his removal as unconstitutional and violative of judicial independence.
Left: Justice Yashwant Varma; Right: Image of burnt cash at his residence shared by SC.
Justice Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the findings of an in-house inquiry panel that recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him, following the controversy triggered by the discovery of charred currency notes at his official residence in New Delhi in March this year.
According to the petition filed by Justice Varma, only Parliament has the authority to remove a judge, via a special majority and due process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
In his plea, Justice Varma termed his removal as unconstitutional and violative of judicial independence. He also raised serious constitutional objections to the in-house inquiry procedure invoked in his case.
“Supreme Court cannot assume or share this removal power — doing so violates separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution. Recommending removal, the judiciary is stepping into a legislative function, which is explicitly prohibited by constitutional design,” says the petition.
“The Chief Justice of India cannot act as the arbiter of a fellow judge’s removal, especially without any judicial or legislative due process,” it adds.
The plea further argues that to the extent the in-house procedure permits “recommendations” of any nature by the judiciary for the removal of judges, it cannot be legitimised as filling the gap between “proved misbehaviour” and “bad conduct inconsistent with high office” as referenced in C Ravichandran Iyer v Justice AM Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457.
According to Justice Varma, the invocation of the in-house procedure in his case:
Overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction;
Concentrates excessive power in the judiciary without established standards or safeguards;
Erodes judicial independence and public confidence;
Was improper and invalid since it was done in the absence of any formal complaint against him.
The petition prays for a declaration that the CJI’s letter to the President and Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal is unconstitutional. It also objects to the Supreme Court’s move to release the internal report to the public, claiming it subjected him to a media trial in violation of his rights.
“Furthermore, the Constitution confers no superintendence or disciplinary powers on this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble CJI over High Courts or their judges. The absence of such authority entails that administrative/self-regulating procedures (such as the In-House Procedure) cannot circumvent or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges or imbue the Hon’ble CJI with unregulated authority to act as the arbiter of the fate of other judges of the High Courts / this Hon’ble Court,” it said.
Ananya Bhatnagar, Correspondent at CNN-News18, reports on various legal issues and cases in lower courts and the Delhi High Court. He has covered the hanging of the Nirbhaya gang-rape convicts, JNU violence, De…Read More
Ananya Bhatnagar, Correspondent at CNN-News18, reports on various legal issues and cases in lower courts and the Delhi High Court. He has covered the hanging of the Nirbhaya gang-rape convicts, JNU violence, De… Read More
view comments
- First Published:
