Supreme Court dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against his removal recommendation

THE SUPREME COURT TODAY dismissed a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court challenging the recommendation for his removal by the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with the constitution of an in-house inquiry committee and the procedure it followed in probing the alleged recovery of a large sum of semi-burnt bundles of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.

The court underscored that the Chief Justice of India, as head of the judiciary, is morally, ethically, and legally empowered to take necessary steps to safeguard the institutional integrity of the judicial system when informed of serious misconduct by a judge.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the constitutionality and legality of the in-house inquiry process initiated by then CJI Khanna, which began with the formation of a three-judge committee and concluded with a May 8 communication to the President and Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal.

“The CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, apart from his various other duties owes a duty to the people of the country to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean and unpolluted,” Justice Datta said speaking for the court,  “It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action. As observed before, it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124.”

Endorsing the action taken by the then CJI, the judgment further said, “Left to him, the CJI upon being informed of a Judge’s remissness does have the authority – moral, ethical and legal – to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear.”

Finding no legal infirmity in the CJI’s May 8 communication, the bench upheld the forwarding of the committee’s report and recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, stating: 

“It is keeping in view such concerns and the legal position of the President being the ultimate appointing authority of judges and the Prime Minister being the head of the Council of Ministers, upon whose aid and advice the President acts under our Constitution, coupled with receipt of complaints from the office of the President that we find the provision in paragraph 7(ii) of the PROCEDURE requiring the CJI to write to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be quite in order, legal and valid. We repeat, the office of the CJI is not to be regarded as a post office that the report should only be routed through the CJI without his observations.”

Delivering the judgment, Justice Datta noted, “We have held that the CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process, except the uploading of photos and videos, which we have held was not required. Nothing turns on that omission because you (Justice Varma) did not challenge it at that stage.”