'CJI not post office': Why Supreme Court said this in Justice Yashwant Varma case

A Supreme Court of India bench, comprisingJustices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, said on Wednesday that even if there had been lapses in the in-house probe procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma case, they wouldn't impact Parliament's action against the Allahabad High Court judge.

The court reserved its verdict on Justice Varma's plea challenging the report of the Supreme Court's three-judge in-house probe panel, which recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him."Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what the CJI says; it acts independently," the bench observed.

Unaccounted cash was allegedly recovered from Justice Varma's officialhouse. He was asitting judge of the Delhi High Court at that time. Former CJI Sanjeev Khanna, after conducting an internal probe, forwarded a recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister to initiate the impeachment process.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry was procedurally flawed and that the CJI had no authority to recommend impeachment. He argued that the power to recommend a judge's removal rests solely with Parliament.

The apex court, however, said that the in-house procedure empowers the Supreme Court to make a recommendation.

"This is just a recommendation of which the Supreme Court has power", Justice Datta said.

To this, Sibal responded, “Then why go to Parliament? Implying if the Court has already acted upon the issue by recommending impeachment, why does it have to go to the Parliament for a deeper probe?”

The bench also remarked that the in-house procedure empowers the committee to assess misconduct and, if warranted, recommend further action. "The CJI is not a post office," the bench noted. "If there is serious material against a judge, the Chief Justice is within his authority to act", it added.