Judge’s conduct immune from public discourse, Kapil Sibal defends Justice Varma in Supreme Court

Sibal, along with Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for Justice Varma.

At the outset, Sibal called the matter “one of some moment,” but Justice Datta observed that the petition “should not have been filed so casually.”

The Bench noted that Justice Varma’s main relief was directed against the Supreme Court itself. “There are three respondents. Your main relief is against the Supreme Court,” Justice Datta pointed out.

Sibal began by questioning the procedural foundation of the inquiry, asserting that until a motion for impeachment is formally moved before the Speaker or Chairman under Article 124(4), it is not a proceeding of the House and thus cannot trigger public debate or official action. “The Speaker acts as a statutory authority, not as the Speaker,” he said.

Sibal criticised the widespread media coverage that followed the release of a video on March 22 allegedly linked to the case, stating, “The judge’s conduct can’t be subject to public debate before the constitutional threshold is crossed. He has already been convicted in public discourse.”

To this, Justice Datta said, “Impeachment itself is a political process,” and pressed Sibal on why he (Justice Varma) chose to participate in the in-house proceedings if he had fundamental objections. “As a constitutional authority, you can’t later claim ignorance,” Justice Datta said.

Referring to Article 124(5), Sibal stressed that even before a motion is tabled in Parliament, the process is governed by statute and therefore open to judicial review. He argued that the judge’s suspension from duties was constitutionally impermissible. “To restrain a judge from discharging judicial functions cannot be granted,” Sibal insisted.

When Justice Datta noted that the committee’s finding was only preliminary and not evidentiary in nature, Sibal argued that even such a finding had grave consequences. “It forms the basis of a removal motion. That’s the injury,” he said.

Addressing the core allegations against Justice Varma related to the discovery of cash in an outhouse, Sibal denied any connection. “The cash doesn’t belong to me. None of my staff was there. They haven’t identified who the cash belongs to,” he said.

Justice Datta, however, noted that there had been no dispute over the fire incident or the recovery of the cash in question.

The Bench also questioned Sibal on why he did not approach the Court to get the video removed or request a gag order. “Why wait for the inquiry to finish? There are precedents of judges stepping back,” Justice Datta said.

Sibal replied, “I thought the committee would determine who the cash belonged to. It was already in public.”

Justice Datta repeatedly pressed Sibal on the distinction between the constitutional validity of the in-house procedure and the personal grievance claimed. “You say the finding is illegal, but your real challenge is the removal recommendation. The in-house process has been upheld already,”he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared on behalf of the Union of India via video conferencing.

The Bench directed Sibal to file a one-page note with bullet points clarifying the arguments and said the matter would be taken up next on Wednesday, July 30. Sibal also agreed to correct the memo of parties in the petition.

Meanwhile, Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, who has filed a third petition seeking FIR registration against Justice Varma, was also present.

Justice Datta, in a pointed remark, told him, “Your petition seems like you were an eyewitness to the incident.”

The matter will now be heard on July 30.

It is to be noted that on July 24, CJI BR Gavai had recused from hearing Justice Varma's plea. The Supreme Court had earlier declined to order an FIR, asking petitioners to await the committee’s findings. Even after the report was allegedly submitted, reportedly indicting Justice Varma, no FIR was registered, prompting the current petition.

The previous petitioners were also advised to approach the President and Prime Minister. While representations were made, the plea states there has been no response or directive to investigate, despite the gravity of the incident.

In May, the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India had refused to provide information in an RTI application seeking copy of the inhouse inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma. The RTI also sought copy of the letter sent by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President of India.