Supreme Court Rejects Justice Varma’s Petition

The Supreme Court has dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge against an in-house committee’s recommendation for his impeachment. This decision follows the discovery of burnt cash at his Delhi residence in March. The court upheld the committee’s findings, deeming them legally and constitutionally valid. Justice Varma’s petition was labeled “not worth entertaining,” and his conduct was criticized as lacking confidence.

Impeachment Process Moves Forward

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the impeachment process against Justice Varma is set to proceed. Over 145 Members of Parliament, from both opposition and government parties, have called for an investigation into the cash-at-home incident. If impeached, Justice Varma could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution.

Justice Varma’s Defense and Supreme Court’s Response

In his defense, Justice Varma argued that the in-house committee lacked jurisdiction and authority to investigate a sitting judge. He claimed he was denied a fair hearing and questioned the Supreme Court’s power to discipline High Court judges. However, these arguments were rejected by the court. During a hearing on July 28, the court questioned why Justice Varma did not challenge the inquiry earlier if he believed it to be illegal.

Understanding Judicial Impeachment

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism for removing judges from office. Although the term ‘impeachment’ is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the process is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and relevant constitutional articles. An impeachment motion requires signatures from at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs to proceed.

The Cash-At-Home Controversy

The controversy began on March 15 when firefighters discovered burnt cash at Justice Varma’s bungalow in Delhi. Justice Varma denied any connection to the money and claimed a conspiracy against him. Despite his denials, the incident raised concerns about corruption within the judiciary, prompting an investigation by an in-house panel that recommended his impeachment.