Kapil Sibal Questions Legitimacy of In-House Probe Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Accuses Centre of Bias and Protecting Justice Shekhar Yadav
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal launched a scathing critique of the central government and the judiciary on Saturday over what he described as a lack of constitutional and procedural integrity in the handling of allegations against two sitting High Court judges—Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shekhar Yadav.
Speaking at a press conference, Sibal argued that the Supreme Court’s in-house investigation into Justice Varma’s conduct held “no constitutional relevance”, asserting that only Parliament has the authority to initiate an investigation into judicial misconduct under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968.
Sibal also accused the Union government of applying double standards in its treatment of the two judges. He suggested that while Justice Varma is being aggressively pursued for impeachment, Justice Yadav is being shielded by the ruling establishment despite having publicly made controversial communal remarks.
The Justice Varma Case: In-House Inquiry Draws Constitutional Objection
At the heart of the issue is the recent Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry into Justice Yashwant Varma, a former Delhi High Court judge who was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court after being found in possession of large quantities of unaccounted cash following a mysterious fire at his Delhi residence in March.
The blaze led to the discovery of several burnt sacks filled with banknotes in the judge’s outhouse. Justice Varma claimed ignorance of the money, but a Supreme Court panel recorded testimonies, examined evidence, and eventually indicted him, reportedly prompting Justice Sanjiv Khanna (then senior-most judge of the Supreme Court) to advise him to resign.
However, Varma refused to step down, and was subsequently transferred back to Allahabad High Court where he currently holds no judicial responsibilities.
Kapil Sibal, however, took strong exception to the way this inquiry was conducted and publicized.
“The Constitution does not recognize any in-house procedure for probing judicial misconduct,” he said, invoking Article 124, which outlines the process of removing a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. According to Sibal, the only legally valid process to investigate and remove a judge is through the Judges Inquiry Act, which mandates that either 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must submit a signed motion.
Once admitted by the Speaker or Chairman, a three-member inquiry committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a senior Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist is formed to conduct the investigation.
Sibal questioned how an internal procedure set up by the Supreme Court in 1999 could be used to determine a judge’s guilt. “This in-house report has no constitutional standing, and it cannot be used by the government or Parliament to justify impeachment,” he said.
He also raised concerns over selective leaks, questioning why Justice Varma’s in-house report was made public while similar reports in previous cases were kept confidential.
Motion Against Justice Shekhar Yadav: Government Accused of Delaying Tactics
Sibal also highlighted what he saw as the hypocrisy and political bias in the handling of a separate impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who had sparked outrage last year by making openly communal remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event.
A motion seeking Justice Yadav’s removal, backed by 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, including Sibal, was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on December 13, 2024.
However, Sibal alleged that deliberate delays had followed. He pointed to multiple email communications from the Secretariat—on March 7, March 13, and May 1—seeking his presence for a meeting, purportedly to verify his signature, despite there being no formal concern about the authenticity of the document.
“If there was no issue with my signature, why was I being asked to come for a meeting with the Chairman?” Sibal questioned. He added that even when he was physically present in the House during the Budget session, no attempt was made to meet him directly.
This, according to him, was part of a larger strategy to delay the motion until Justice Yadav’s retirement in 2026.
Sibal also noted that Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had made public remarks claiming the impeachment motion against Justice Varma would be moved on day one of the upcoming Monsoon session and completed within three months.
“Three months have already passed since we filed the motion against Justice Yadav, but there’s no action. Why this disparity?” Sibal asked.
Accusations of Political Motive and Misuse of Institutions
The Independent MP was sharply critical of the government’s role in selectively pursuing judges based on political convenience. He alleged that Justice Yadav is being protected because his views and statements align with the ideological leanings of those in power.
“There is no ambiguity in what Justice Yadav said. He admitted to it himself. So why the delay? Why the protection?” Sibal asked.
He also challenged the legality of ministers publicly committing to move impeachment motions, pointing out that such motions must originate from members of Parliament, not the executive branch. “How can a minister say, ‘I will move a motion’?
That is unconstitutional. It is the prerogative of MPs,” he emphasized.
The Judges Inquiry Act and Constitutional Process
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in either House of Parliament, the Speaker or Chairman is required to form a three-member inquiry committee.
This committee then investigates the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity and submits a report to Parliament. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion must be passed by each House with a two-thirds majority of members present and voting for the removal to proceed.
This process, Sibal asserted, is the only constitutionally sanctioned route for investigating and removing a judge. Any parallel mechanisms, such as the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry, may serve administrative or internal purposes but hold no legislative or constitutional weight.
Upcoming Monsoon Session and the Road Ahead
The Monsoon Session of Parliament, scheduled from July 21 to August 21, is likely to see heated debates over these judicial controversies. With the government signaling its intent to move the motion against Justice Varma and the opposition pressing for action against Justice Yadav, the stage is set for a confrontation over judicial accountability and institutional impartiality.
