Did You Approach Court To Get Video Taken Down? Why Wait For Inquiry To Finish?: Supreme Court Asks While Hearing Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Removal Recommendation

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih heard the matter.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra appeared for Justice Varma. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.

Opening his arguments on the constitutional framework, Sibal submitted, “Under Article 124, the removal process starts only when a motion is filed before the Speaker or the Chairman. Until then, it is not a proceeding of the House. The Speaker acts as a statutory authority, not as Speaker... the judge’s conduct can’t be subject to public debate before that stage. After a tape was released on March 22, the entire country started discussing a sitting Constitution Bench judge. The man is already convicted in public discourse.”

He argued that the committee had drawn adverse inferences without adequate basis. When Justice Datta asked what material was relied on, Sibal replied it’s in the report. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara interjected , “It is there in mine, prompting Justice Datta to say, “ I know but I deliberately did not read it because I want it to come from them. If you succeed in first two prayers, we didn’t need to look into other things.”

Sibal submitted that the factual aspects would be addressed during arguments and said reports will only come once we argue on fact. He referred to sub-clauses of Article 124 and past precedents, including the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, asserting that the statutory process under Article 124(5) is subject to judicial review. He submitted, “All that has happened is completely contrary to the Constitution, release of tapes, putting it on website, public fury, public discussion, media interaction, findings by public discussing conduct of judge is all prohibited. This is the question that arises for consideration.”

Justice Datta asked, “Why did you appear before the committee? You are a constitutional authority, you can’t say you don’t know. You didn’t directly make these points before the committee?”

Sibal responded that both Houses passed resolutions based on the report. When the Bench asked to whom the report was submitted, he said it was sent to the President. Justice Datta questioned, “Why do you think sending it to the President is problematic? Sending it to the President and Council of Ministers doesn’t mean the CJI is trying to persuade the House?”

Sibal contended, “The government has no role. This is an independent power. If a judge has committed a criminal offence, immediately an FIR is registered. If not, what is the misbehaviour?”

Justice Datta noted, “It could amount to misbehaviour under the Bangalore Principles. Sibal asked if cash is found in an outhouse, what exactly is the judge’s behaviour here?”

Justice Datta remarked, “You haven’t disputed the fire incident or the recovery of cash”. Sibal maintained that the cash did not belong to him, no staff member of his was present, and ownership was not established.

Justice Datta said, “The cash was found. The police was present. If you’re challenging the procedure, then the inquiry couldn’t have been held. Sibal clarified no, I’m challenging the impeachment itself.”

Justice Datta responded that’s part of the procedure. Sibal said the process ran contrary to the constitutional scheme. Justice Datta stated, “ The sanctity of the procedure has already been upheld. Sibal clarified I’m not challenging the sanctity, I’m challenging the recommendation for removal. Justice Datta remarked that recommendation is only for initiating the process, to which Sibal responded it still couldn’t have been done.”

The Bench then posed a hypothetical situation asking, “Suppose Parliament is in session and a judge does something completely contrary to the Bangalore Principles. If the Leader of the House is asked to act, is that permissible?”

Sibal replied that unless there is satisfaction that the conduct warrants removal, the process should not proceed. Justice Datta then asked whether the CJI could recommend action and if a citizen could move Parliament. Sibal said in such a situation the citizen would come to court.

Justice Datta pointed out, “ Then you rely on the in-house procedure. It’s only a preliminary, ad hoc finding. What’s the value of that finding? It’s not evidence. Evidence must come before the judges’ inquiry. If it’s not evidentiary, how are you aggrieved?

Sibal replied , “Because that finding is the basis for moving the motion. In the meantime, I was already convicted by the public. The video was released.”

Justice Datta asked, “Did you approach the court to get the video taken down? Why wait for the inquiry to finish and the report to come out? There have been cases where judges recused themselves during such situations.”

Sibal responded that the material had already entered the public domain and he had hoped the committee would determine the ownership of the cash.

The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on Wednesday, July 30. Justice Datta asked Sibal to file a one-page bullet point note. Sibal agreed and assured that he would also make necessary corrections in the memo of parties.

CJI Gavai on July 23, 2025, recused himself from hearing the challenge filed by Justice Yashwant Varma against the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal, stating, “I was part of the conversation.” He assured that a separate Bench will be constituted.

The matter was taken up after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sought urgent listing, stating, “We’ve filed a petition on behalf of the Allahabad High Court Judge... we’ve raised some constitutional issues.” The CJI responded that it would not be appropriate for him to hear it and said, “We’ll take a call and constitute a Bench.”

Justice Varma has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the findings of the in-house committee and the recommendation made by then CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna following the alleged recovery of charred high-denomination notes from his official residence in March 2025.

In his petition, Justice Varma contends that he was not present in Delhi during the fire and had no knowledge of any cash. He alleges that the inquiry process violated natural justice, denied him a hearing, reversed the burden of proof, and operated without a formal complaint. He argues that such proceedings bypass Parliament’s role under Articles 124 and 218.

He has sought a declaration that the in-house procedure is inapplicable in such cases and prayed for the committee’s report and the 8 May 2025 recommendation to be declared unconstitutional and void.