In a sharp critique of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry process, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha Member Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned the procedural integrity of the internal investigation conducted against Justice Yashwant Varma. Sibal alleged that the inquiry committee proceeded without affording the judge an opportunity to be heard, thus contravening established norms of natural justice.
The matter pertains to an in-house inquiry initiated following the recovery of unaccounted cash from an outhouse near the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma in New Delhi.
The discovery occurred in March while Justice Varma was serving on the bench of the Delhi High Court. A three-member committee was constituted, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court), to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the cash recovery.
At a press briefing, Kapil Sibal asserted that the committee delivered findings against Justice Varma without following a formal inquiry procedure or granting him a hearing. He emphasized, “You decided against a High Court judge without any inquiry and procedure...The judge was not even heard. This is absolutely shocking.”
Senior Advocate further observed that the report failed to disclose the precise quantum of cash allegedly recovered. He criticized the inference drawn by the committee, stating that it had merely presumed judicial complicity based on the location of the recovered money:“The committee concluded that if the cash was placed in the outhouse, it must have been after the judge's permission.”
He also drew comparisons with prior judicial impeachment proceedings, arguing that those cases involved undisputed facts, unlike the present instance. Additionally, Sibal accused the Central Government of selectively shielding certain members of the judiciary, referencing Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who was previously accused of making communal remarks in 2024.
While the contents of the in-house committee’s report remain undisclosed in full, Sibal highlighted its reasoning as per available information, specifically its conclusion: “If the cash was placed in the outhouse, it must have been after the judge's permission.”
Source Link
Picture Source :
