Justice Varma cash row: Supreme Court dismisses judge’s plea challenging in-house probe

On the question whether the procedure has legal sanction, the bench answered this in the affirmative. “We have said that the procedure does have legal sanction,” Justice Datta said, reading out the operative parts of the judgment.

The bench held that the then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee set up by him “have scrupulously followed the procedure except one that is the uploading of the video footage and the photographs” of the alleged burnt cash.

The bench said, “We have said that it was not required under the procedure to do so, but having said so, we have also held that nothing turns on it because at the opportune moment you did not question it, and there is also no relief claimed in the writ petition insofar as uploading is concerned.”

On the procedure requiring CJI to forward the report of the committee to the President and the Prime Minister, the SC held that “it is not unconstitutional.”

The bench also went into the question whether an inquiry and the consequent report in terms of the procedure, which could be unfavourable to the judge under probe, is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism. “We have also held that it is not a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism,” said the bench.

On whether paragraph 5b of the procedure falls foul of Article 125 read with Article 217 and 218 of the Constitution or abrogates any fundamental right of a judge of a high court, the bench said, “The answer is in the negative.”

Justice Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi HC, is facing an impeachment motion following a probe into allegations of cash being found at his official residence. He moved the Supreme Court on July 18, challenging the in-house inquiry mechanism, which indicted him, calling it a “parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism”.