Supreme Court to Form Special Bench for Justice Varma’s Constitutional Challenge to In-House Inquiry

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is set to convene a special bench to adjudicate a petition filed by Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, which mounts a fundamental challenge to the constitutional validity of the judiciary's internal disciplinary mechanism. The case, which stems from the controversial discovery of a large sum of cash at the judge's official residence, places the delicate balance between judicial accountability and independence under intense scrutiny.

On Wednesday, the matter was urgently mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai. A formidable team of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, and Siddharth Aggarwal, appeared for Justice Varma, underscoring the gravity of the issues at stake.

"We have filed the petition on behalf of the Allahabad High Court Judge. Some constitutional issues are there. I request you to constitute a bench as soon as possible," Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted to the court.

In a significant move demonstrating judicial propriety, CJI Gavai recused himself from hearing the matter. "I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was part of that conversation," the CJI stated, referring to discussions with his predecessor, former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, who had recommended impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. CJI Gavai assured the counsel, "We will just take a call and constitute a bench."

This decision paves the way for a crucial hearing that could have far-reaching implications for the internal governance of the Indian judiciary.

The Core of the Challenge: An "Extra-Constitutional Mechanism"?

Justice Varma's petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Niti, targets the very foundation of the "In-House Procedure" adopted by the Supreme Court via a Full Court Resolution in 1999. This procedure was conceived as a self-regulatory tool to handle complaints against judges, thereby preserving judicial independence while maintaining public faith.

However, Justice Varma argues that this internal process has overstepped its intended scope. The petition contends that by culminating in a recommendation for his removal, the in-house inquiry has created a "parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism." It argues this mechanism derogates from the exclusive, constitutionally mandated framework for the removal of High Court judges, which is vested solely in Parliament under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The plea asserts that administrative procedures, even those adopted by the Supreme Court, "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."

Allegations of Procedural Impropriety and Violation of Natural Justice

Beyond the primary constitutional challenge, Justice Varma's petition meticulously details a series of alleged procedural failings by the three-judge in-house inquiry committee, claiming a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The committee—comprising Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court)—was constituted by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna following the discovery of currency notes during a fire-fighting operation at Justice Varma's Delhi residence on March 14.

The petition alleges that the inquiry was conducted in a "pre-determined fashion" and lists several grievances:

* Lack of Due Process: The committee allegedly failed to notify Justice Varma of its devised procedure.

* Denial of Participation: He was reportedly denied the opportunity to provide input on evidence collection and witnesses were examined in his absence.

* Selective Disclosure: Instead of providing full video recordings of witness examinations, the committee allegedly supplied only paraphrased statements and selectively disclosed only "incriminating" material.

* Evidence Ignored: The petition claims the committee ignored requests to collect potentially exculpatory evidence, such as CCTV footage.

* Reversal of Burden of Proof: A key contention is that the committee impermissibly reversed the burden of proof, requiring Justice Varma to explain the presence of the cash without first establishing a prima facie case against him. The committee concluded that since the storeroom was within his "covert or active control," the onus was on him to provide a plausible explanation beyond a "flat denial or a bald plea of conspiracy."

"The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability)... and effectively hindered any effective defence by the Petitioner," the petition states.

Background of the Controversy and Inquiry

The controversy erupted on March 14 when a fire at an outhouse of Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi led to the discovery of a large quantity of cash, some of it burnt. The ensuing public and political storm prompted then-CJI Khanna to act. Justice Varma was repatriated from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court, and judicial work was withdrawn pending the inquiry.

The committee examined 55 witnesses and submitted its report in May, finding sufficient grounds to propose action against the judge. After Justice Varma reportedly refused to resign upon the CJI's advice, CJI Khanna forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending the initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Justice Varma’s plea also takes issue with the Supreme Court’s public disclosure of information related to the case, arguing it fueled a "media trial" that caused "irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career."

The stage is now set for a seminal legal battle before a specially constituted Supreme Court bench. The court's examination of Justice Varma’s petition will not only decide the fate of an individual judge but will also serve as a critical moment of introspection for the judiciary, potentially reshaping the very mechanisms it uses to police itself.