SC's in-house probe report in Justice Varma case has no constitutional relevance: Sibal

New Delhi: Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Saturday said the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry report in Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s case has “no constitutional relevance” as an investigation can only take place under the Judges Inquiry Act.

Addressing a press conference, Sibal also accused the government of protecting Justice Shekhar Yadav and questioned the Rajya Sabha Secretariat over its attempt to reach out to him for the reported verification of his signature on the notice to move an impeachment motion against the judge for making “communal remarks” last year at a VHP event.

On the Justice Varma case, Sibal said, “Under Article 124 of the Constitution, if 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha submit a notice for moving a motion (for impeachment), then a judges’ inquiry committee is set up under the Judges Inquiry Act.”

Also Read

Lord Jagannath’s ‘Bahuda’ Yatra: Chariot pulling begins

But only Parliament has the power to constitute such a committee, said Sibal, who is also a senior advocate.

Parliament can make a law, under that law, an investigation will be done, and after the probe, a decision will be given on misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge, he said.

At a joint sitting of both Houses, the impeachment motion has to be passed by a two-thirds majority for it to go through.

So, the investigation has to be under the judges’ inquiry committee set up under the Judges Inquiry Act, he said.

The Constitution does not recognise any in-house procedure, Sibal said.

“On what basis are you saying that Justice Varma is guilty? Ministers are making remarks to this effect,” the Independent MP said.

Sibal also pointed out that Parliament states that the motion for impeachment will be brought by members and not the government.

“How does a minister make the statement that ‘I will move the motion’? The government cannot rely on an in-house procedure which has nothing to do with Article 124 of the Constitution,” he contended.

No government or member of Parliament can look at that report and come to any conclusion, Sibal asserted.

He further said that the in-house procedure was set up in 1999 by the Supreme Court, and there have been many impeachment motions against judges, but the in-house procedure report was never sent to the government.

“So why did this in-house report become public in this case when the previous ones weren’t?” he asked.

A fire incident at Justice Varma’s residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of banknotes in the outhouse.

Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement.

Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna is believed to have prodded him to resign, but Justice Varma dug in his heels.

The apex court has since repatriated him to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work.

Sibal’s remarks come days after Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said prominent opposition parties have given their in-principle approval to support the motion to remove Varma, and the process of collecting signatures could begin soon.

Rijiju said the government is yet to decide whether the motion would be brought in the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.

Speaking about the opposition MPs’ notice for moving a motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav, Sibal said it was moved on December 13, 2024, and he had gone to the chamber of the chairman, and the secretary general received it.

“I saw the statement of Kiren Rijiju, he said that the impeachment motion of Yashwant Varma will be moved on day one of the session, and in three months, after the constitution of the judges’ inquiry committee, it will be passed. He said that there should be no delay. Three months had gone by… (since) we gave the motion of Shekhar Yadav.

“They say that they had sent mails on March 7, March 13 and May 1. If 50 members of the Rajya Sabha agree, the motion should be admitted… I did not get mail on March 7, I got it on March 13… It did not talk about my signature, they asked me to come for interaction with the chairman, the same letter came on May 1,” Sibal said.

He said if there was no problem with the authentication of the signature, then why was he called for an interaction?

Sibal said he had also made speeches in Parliament after the said emails to him, but was never asked to meet the Chair when he was present in the House during the Budget session.

He accused the government of protecting Justice Yadav as his retirement was nearing in 2026, and it wanted to delay the issue.

Sibal said what is surprising is that those on the ruling side themselves are defending Justice Yadav openly.

“There is not even a need to investigate this because he himself is admitting to the statement,” Sibal said.

“As far as Yashwant Varma is concerned, they say that they would move the Motion on the first day and wrap it up within three months. Why are there two different parameters? Because Justice Shekhar Yadav has made statements which they perhaps agree with,” he said.

The Monsoon session will commence from July 21 and end on August 21.

According to the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought.

The committee consists of the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a “distinguished jurist”.

Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.