NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Saturday said the Supreme Court ’s in-house inquiry report against Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma “has no constitutional relevance” and cannot be the basis for any impeachment proceedings , as the Constitution only recognises the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 as the valid legal process for probing judicial misconduct .
Addressing a press conference, Sibal said, “Under Article 124 of the Constitution, only Parliament has the authority to initiate an inquiry through the Judges Inquiry Act. An in-house procedure has no legal standing under the Constitution.”
Justice Yashwant Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court earlier this year after a fire incident at his Delhi residence led to the discovery of burnt sacks of banknotes. A Supreme Court-appointed committee reportedly indicted him after recording his statement and witness testimonies, though the judge denied any knowledge of the cash.
Sibal questioned the basis of public statements calling Varma guilty: “How can ministers make such remarks? On what basis are you saying Justice Varma is guilty when the Constitution doesn’t even recognise in-house procedures?”
He also asked why the in-house report in this case had been made public, unlike previous instances where similar reports were kept confidential.
‘Two standards for two judges’
Sibal accused the government of selectively fast-tracking the process in Varma’s case while allegedly stalling the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav , who had made communal remarks at a VHP event last year.
He claimed the opposition's impeachment motion against Justice Yadav was submitted on December 13, 2024, but the Rajya Sabha Secretariat delayed processing it, citing issues like signature verification and requesting his interaction with the chairman.
“They sent emails on March 7, March 13, and May 1, but I was only asked to meet the Chair much later, even when I was present in the House during the Budget session,” Sibal said.
He alleged the government was protecting Justice Yadav because he is set to retire in 2026. “Those in the ruling party are defending him openly. There’s no need to even investigate this, he has admitted to his statements himself.”
In contrast, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju recently said the motion to impeach Justice Varma would be moved on the first day of the Monsoon session and concluded within three months.
“Why two parameters?” Sibal asked. “Because Justice Yadav made statements that they perhaps agree with.”
The Monsoon session of Parliament begins on July 21 and will continue until August 21. Under the Judges Inquiry Act, a motion signed by 50 Rajya Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha MPs triggers a formal investigation by a three-member panel that includes a Supreme Court or high court judge and a distinguished jurist. A two-thirds majority in both Houses is required for impeachment to pass.
Addressing a press conference, Sibal said, “Under Article 124 of the Constitution, only Parliament has the authority to initiate an inquiry through the Judges Inquiry Act. An in-house procedure has no legal standing under the Constitution.”
Justice Yashwant Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court earlier this year after a fire incident at his Delhi residence led to the discovery of burnt sacks of banknotes. A Supreme Court-appointed committee reportedly indicted him after recording his statement and witness testimonies, though the judge denied any knowledge of the cash.
Sibal questioned the basis of public statements calling Varma guilty: “How can ministers make such remarks? On what basis are you saying Justice Varma is guilty when the Constitution doesn’t even recognise in-house procedures?”
He also asked why the in-house report in this case had been made public, unlike previous instances where similar reports were kept confidential.
‘Two standards for two judges’
Sibal accused the government of selectively fast-tracking the process in Varma’s case while allegedly stalling the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav , who had made communal remarks at a VHP event last year.
He claimed the opposition's impeachment motion against Justice Yadav was submitted on December 13, 2024, but the Rajya Sabha Secretariat delayed processing it, citing issues like signature verification and requesting his interaction with the chairman.
“They sent emails on March 7, March 13, and May 1, but I was only asked to meet the Chair much later, even when I was present in the House during the Budget session,” Sibal said.
He alleged the government was protecting Justice Yadav because he is set to retire in 2026. “Those in the ruling party are defending him openly. There’s no need to even investigate this, he has admitted to his statements himself.”
In contrast, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju recently said the motion to impeach Justice Varma would be moved on the first day of the Monsoon session and concluded within three months.
“Why two parameters?” Sibal asked. “Because Justice Yadav made statements that they perhaps agree with.”
The Monsoon session of Parliament begins on July 21 and will continue until August 21. Under the Judges Inquiry Act, a motion signed by 50 Rajya Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha MPs triggers a formal investigation by a three-member panel that includes a Supreme Court or high court judge and a distinguished jurist. A two-thirds majority in both Houses is required for impeachment to pass.
You may also like
First picture of teen boy found dead on railway tracks near Poynton Station
Brewing Magic at McCafe Espressers: When Passion Meets Skill
No Dalai Lama or Khalistan link in McLeodganj searches, says NIA
Siblings drown after accidentally falling inside water pit in Telangana
'700 Runs Is Too Less': Netizens React As India Delays Declaration Despite Having Hefty Lead During 2nd Test Match Against England
