NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Chief Justice of India cannot function merely as a post office and when confronted with grave misconduct, he can recommend removal of a judge to the President of india.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said when the Chief Justice of India examined the evidence and finds the charges against a sitting judge as serious enough, he can always recommend for initiating removal proceedings.
Dealing with a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, the court said, based on the in-house findings, the Chief Justice of India may withdraw judicial assignments, but Parliament remains free to accept or reject the recommendation.
"The CJI cannot function merely as a post office. When confronted with grave misconduct, the Chief Justice of India can recommend to the President of india. As a guardian of judiciary he has some duty towards the nation. We could have remained mum and simply issued a ruling, but that would be unjust," the bench said.
The apex court reserved its judgment on the plea by Justice Varma who challenged the validity of the recommendation to initiate removal proceedings against him on the basis of in-house inquiry committee report in connection with discovery of cash haul at his offical residence here in March this year.
The court orally observed that there was no violation of any right in the in-house procedure in case of Justice Varma, as formation of in-house inquiry committee is a law in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution due to previous rulings.
The court also questioned the conduct of the judge in participating in in-house procedure and later questioning validity of its procedure. His conduct does not inspires confidence, it said.
The court also said in-house inquiry is only preliminary and not punitive and not requiring adherence to evidentiary procedure or cross examination.
"A message must go to the society that due process was followed," the bench said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Varma, questioned the validity of the recommendation by the CJI to the President and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge. He contended if an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124 of the Constitution.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi and Sidharth Luthra also appeared for Justice Varma in his plea listed as 'XXX Vs The Union of India And Ors'.
Sibal said it was unusual as there was no formal complaint initiating the inquiry in the case of Justice Varma as the process was started on a report by the Delhi High Court's Chief Justice.
"In a proper impeachment inquiry, a committee conducts full proceedings including cross-examination before recommending removal. This preliminary inquiry lacks those safeguards," he said.
The bench, however, said, this is just an initial fact-finding process and cross-examination is not a part of such preliminary proceedings.
Sibal, then, asked how such a process can possibly justify recommending impeachment.
The court, however, said such a procedural objection should have been raised earlier, at the time when he was being denied cross-examination rights.
The court also pointed out Section 3(2) of the Judges Protection Act allowed the initiation of in-house procedure and withdrawal of judicial work from a judge.
The bench also asked if Parliament is legally bound by the in-house committee's procedure.
"Let's be clear - the committee is not advising removal, only suggesting the initiation of proceedings. There is a crucial difference," the bench said.
Sibal contended the proceedings were initiated based on the recommendation of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice.
The bench, however, pointed out this was an in-house procedure, not a formal judicial process.
On the "unauthorised disclosure of the tape" the bench agreed such leakage was improper and should not have occurred.
However, the bench said, "Parliament acts independently. It has its own powers. Do you think parliament will act on advice of CJI?"
Sibal said the judge has been held guilty in public.
The bench, however, said the judge had opportunity before the committee and he would again have an opportunity before the committee of Parliament.
Sibal, however, referred to comments made against the judge in Parliament even by ministers.
"Even if a minister says something it matters a little in case like this. If these are the established facts, you do have valid grounds. Remember, this committee's findings are only provisional and won't influence any subsequent proceedings. When politicians or ministers make statements, they carry little legal weight," the bench said.
Sibal contended that judge does not have any avenue to contest the in-house inquiry committee report's conclusions.
The court, however, said the judge's challenge to the constitutionality of the procedure, he should have acted sooner.
"Even the reports suggesting guilt were available earlier, this only became urgent after the tapes were leaked," the bench said.
The bench repeatedly emphasised that the relief he was seeking now could have been requested earlier.
"You should have come and made the fault corrected earlier why now? When you know that inhouse procedure could trigger impeachment...you should have said this (in-house inquiry committee and leakage of video) comes in my way," the bench said.
The court also said the judge was waiting for a favourable finding from the committee.
"Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the conduct is also relevant. When you raise something under Article 32, the conduct matters a lot. Why did you choose to participate? Your conduct in this matter is highly relevant," the bench said.
The court also pointed out determining ownership of the money (alleged to be discovered at the residence) was never within the committee's jurisdiction, as Sibal asked if he should have accepted the committee's findings.
"Why are you inviting us to go there, you'll be more in trouble," the bench told Sibal.
On a plea by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, who sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Varma, the bench questioned if he had filed a formal complaint in this regard.
In his writ petition, Justice Varma, who was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent, Allahabad High Court after the alleged discovery of cash at his residence in March this year, questioned the validity of the in-house procedure, marked by what he claimed as denial of fair hearing and due process.
He also raised the issue of absence of formal complaint before the inquiry was initiated by the judges panel. Justice Varma contended the Supreme Court's act of uploading a press release on March 22, 2025, disclosing allegations against him led to intense media speculation adversely affecting his reputation and violating the right to dignity.
Justice Varma also contended the judges committee, formed by the CJI Sanjiv Khanna, denied him an opportunity to rebut the allegations or to cross examine witnesses.
He contended the recommendation to remove him was made without any personal opportunity to explain his case. He also claimed that the committee failed to investigate the basic facts, especially those related to the alleged discovery of cash on March 14.
