The MTA Speaks: Parliament to decide Justice Varma’s fate, impeachment motion to be discussed; Analysis here

Supreme Court Justice Yashwant Varma is facing impeachment due to allegations of burnt notes worth around Rs 15 crore in his storeroom. Watch an exclusive analysis by veteran journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash

New Delhi: The question that has come to the center of India's Constitutional system and the dignity of the judiciary - Will Justice Yashwant Varma escape impeachment? And what arguments has Varma made in his defence? mThis question did not arise. Its roots are in the fire that broke out in one night, which shook the faith in the judicial system of the country.

Senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash said in his show 'The MTA Speaks' that, Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, whose official bungalow in Delhi caught fire on the night of March 1, has been transferred to the CBI. Media reports claimed that burnt notes worth around Rs 15 crore were found in the storeroom when the investigation was carried out there after the fire.

These allegations were not made against an ordinary person but against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of the country. On this basis, the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee on March 22. The report, submitted on May 4, said the storeroom was controlled by the judge and his family and burnt pieces of cash were recovered from there.

The committee's report was released on June 19. The 64-page report contained statements of 55 witnesses. These include Delhi Police, CRPF, ITBP and Army personnel. The report confirmed that half-burnt Rs 500-500 notes were seen in the store room. Two of Justice Varma's staffers were also seen taking out these notes - and not only that, their voices were identified in the viral video.

Inquiry Committee Report

The five main points on which the inquiry committee prepared the report included facts such as eyewitness testimonies, video footage, contradictions in the statement by Justice Varma's daughter, and the locked state of the storeroom. The committee concluded that the store room could not have been accessed by an outsider and the cash being found there is a serious matter.

Impeachment Recommendation

On the basis of these facts, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote letters to the President and the Prime Minister recommending impeachment. Preparations to implement this recommendation have intensified as soon as the monsoon session of Parliament begins. It is reported that the process of bringing impeachment motion has started in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the ruling and opposition parties have reached a consensus on it.

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has said that discussions have been held with all major parties. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also condemned the incident. According to him, Congress MPs will sign the resolution. The Congress also claimed that after the then CJI Khanna wrote to the President and the Prime Minister, the MPs were left with no option but to move the resolution.

But the question is, is the process fair?

Justice Varma is asking the same question to the Supreme Court.
He filed a petition in the Supreme Court on July 18, terming the entire action as arbitrary, unconstitutional and unjust.

Now let us know what he has said in his defense -

Justice Varma has categorically said that it is against the principles of natural justice to hold him guilty just because some burnt notes were found in the storeroom of his bungalow. He also questioned whether the notes were genuine or fake. It was not clear how the cash got there, when it arrived and how the fire started.

In his petition, he posed five straightforward questions:

• When and how did the money come?
• How much was the cash?
• Is the money real or fake?
• Why and how did the fire break out?
• Was he himself involved in it?

He claims that these questions were not answered by the inquiry committee, yet he was convicted.

Not only that, he has laid down ten legal arguments on the basis of which he has sought to quash the in-house report and the impeachment recommendation.

According to him: The report violates Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution.

• The in-house procedure is only an administrative guideline, not constitutionally binding.
•  Setting up an inquiry committee without a formal complaint makes the process itself illegal.
• "It is inappropriate to form a committee on the basis of media reports.
•  The press release was taken out without informing him of the allegations which caused huge damage to his reputation.
• Witnesses were not given the opportunity to cross-examine.
• CCTV footage was ignored.
• The Committee's report is based on estimates, not facts.
• Asked to resign or face impeachment within 12 hours of receiving the report - this was prejudiced action.
• Judges in earlier cases were given an opportunity of personal hearing, but not him.

He has also objected that the confidential investigation report was leaked to the media, causing irreparable damage to his image.
Now the question arises, will the Supreme Court dismiss this petition as a mere technical challenge, or will it take a serious view of it?
Is Article 124 of the Constitution just a procedure or even a guardian of the principles of justice?

At the same time, the opposition does not want to let the issue remain limited. He has indicated that the issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav, who is accused of making communal remarks and against whom a case is pending since December 2024, will also be raised in Parliament.

So all in all, the ongoing impeachment process of Justice Verma is not only a personal crisis, but it is also a constitutional challenge, which is a test of all three - the impartiality of the judiciary, the extent of the executive and the role of the legislature.

Will Justice Varma survive impeachment or will a parliamentary majority put an end to his judicial career? This will become clearer in the coming days.