In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by Justice Yashwant Varma, who sought to challenge an in-house inquiry report recommending his removal from office. The inquiry was initiated after authorities discovered a substantial amount of cash at his residence earlier this year, sparking controversy and raising questions about judicial integrity.
Inquiry Process Upheld as Constitutional
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih ruled that the in-house committee’s formation and its inquiry procedures were legally sound. The court emphasized that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the committee adhered strictly to established protocols. Addressing a point raised by Varma’s counsel, the bench noted, “The CJI and the in-house committee scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video, and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then.” This statement underscores the court’s view that procedural objections raised by Varma lacked merit, as they were not contested at the appropriate time.
The ruling dismisses Varma’s objections to the inquiry’s legitimacy, affirming that the committee’s actions were within constitutional bounds. The decision clears a significant hurdle for Parliament, which can now move forward with impeachment proceedings against the judge.
ALSO READ: Justice Yashwant Varma seeks anonymity in SC plea against removal recommendation
CJI’s Recommendation to President Deemed Valid
Justice Varma had also challenged the CJI’s recommendation to the President for his removal, arguing it was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating, “We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional.” The court further clarified that while it dismissed Varma’s plea, it left room for him to pursue further legal recourse if necessary, noting, “We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future.”
This nuanced ruling ensures that while the current plea has been dismissed, Varma retains the option to explore other legal avenues, though the path to impeachment now appears imminent. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding accountability, even among its ranks, and sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
