Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has strongly criticized the Centre and the Supreme Court over the internal inquiry conducted against Justice Yashwant Varma, formerly of the Delhi High Court. Sibal alleged that the probe lacked transparency, violated judicial procedures, and was carried out without giving Justice Varma a chance to present his side.
The controversy dates back to March when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. During firefighting operations, cash was reportedly found in the outhouse, which led to an internal investigation by a Supreme Court-appointed committee.
Speaking on the matter, Sibal said, “If the government wants to initiate impeachment proceedings, it should do so through Parliament. But here, there was direct intervention without solid investigation.” He emphasized that while the outhouse was part of the judge’s allocated premises, the Supreme Court acted without conducting a proper inquiry.
Sibal criticized the three-member committee appointed by the Supreme Court — comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. He remarked, “You conducted an investigation, prepared a report, but didn’t even hear the judge’s side. This goes against the principles of justice.”
Raising concerns about broader implications, Sibal speculated, “Either the government is upset over something, or this is an attempt to revive the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) to exert pressure on the judiciary.”
He also drew attention to another pending matter — the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court — highlighting that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has been unable to verify his signature for six months. “Is this not double standards?” Sibal questioned.
According to reports, the committee submitted its findings last month to the Prime Minister and the President. Sibal pointed out that the report did not even disclose the amount of cash recovered or explain how it was presumed to have been kept with the judge’s knowledge.
