Observing that Justice Yashwant Varma’s conduct does not inspire confidence, the Supreme Court posed sharp questions to the judge seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row.
The top court asked Justice Varma why did he appear before the in-house inquiry committee and not challenge it then and there.
It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel’s report.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih said if the Chief Justice of India has material to believe that there is misconduct by a judge then he can inform the President and the prime minister.
“Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But judiciary has to send a message to the society that process has been followed,” the bench observed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that the in-house inquiry panel’s recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional.
Sibal told the court that recommendation of proceedings for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent.
He said Justice Varma did not approach earlier as tape was released and his reputation was already damaged.
The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
