|
The Supreme Court on Monday posed various questions to Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma while hearing his plea challenging the in-house inquiry panel procedure leading to the initiation of impeachment proceedings against him after burnt wads of cash were recovered from his residence following a fire incident in Delhi.
During the hearing, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Justice Varma, why his client did not challenge the three-judge in-house inquiry procedure constituted by the Chief Justice of India prior to his appearance before the panel. The top court questioned why Justice Varma chose to appear before the in-house inquiry panel if he believed it was unconstitutional, and why he is challenging it only now, after the proceedings have concluded. "There have been instances in the past where judges have abstained from appearing before such inquiry panels, then why did you appear? Did you think they were going to pass favourable decision? You're a constitutional authority. You can't say that you didn't know. You should have immediately come to this Court. You should've raised these points earlier", the bench asked the senior counsel representing Justice Varma. In response to the top court's queries, Senior Counsel Sibal submitted that Justice Varma chose to appear before the committee in the hope that it would determine to whom the cash belonged. Challenging the narrative built around Justice Varma's complicity in the incident, Sibal further argued that the probe into a judge's conduct cannot be discussed in public or anywhere until the process provided under Article 124(5) of the Constitution of India and a Constitutional bench judgement is followed. Sibal also questioned the CJI's decision in having released a press report and a video recording showing the half burnt cash found at Justice Varma's residence, following the incident. "The tape is released on the first day. The man stands convicted. Questions asked whose cash is this? Then there are adverse inferences. A public furore, media interactions. Accusations against the judge, discussing the judge. If the procedure allows them to do that then the procedure is bad itself", Sibal asserted. Moreover, Sibal also argued that Justice Varma's impeachment cannot proceed until it has been proven that the cash found in his residence belonged to him. "It has not been yet been proved that half burnt cash belonged to the judge and even the inquiry committee hasn't proved that it belonged to me (Justice Varma). None of my staff (in my official residence) was there who said that it was my money." The Supreme Court, however, was of the view that it cannot hear arguments over the in-house inquiry report unless the same is presented before it by the petitioner (Justice Varma) on record. In response, Sibal stated that he will attach the said report along with Justice Varma's petition. After hearing submissions, the top court posted the matter for hearing next on Wednesday. Justice Varma, in his plea, has stated that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the in-house inquiry committee before it presented its findings. The cash was allegedly found by fire tenders when a fire broke out at his Delhi residence on March 14, while he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge was not present at his house. (ANI)
|
