"XXX vs Union Of India": Top Court To Hear Justice Varma's Challenge Today

Justice Yashwant Varma, who has approached the Supreme Court after its three-member panel recommended his removal, has kept his identity a secret while filing the petition. The Allahabad High Court judge, who made headlines after a massive cash recovery at his Delhi home after a fire, is referred to as "XXX" in the court documents.

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih will today hear Justice Varma's petition, which challenges the findings of the three-member panel.

Following the huge cash recovery from his Delhi home, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court from his earlier posting in the Delhi High Court. The then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge panel to investigate the matter. Following the panel's report, the then Chief Justice recommended Justice Varma's removal.

In his challenge to the action against him, the judge has said he was not at his Delhi home when the cash was discovered. He said the top court panel probing the matter did not hear him. The judge has said that the Supreme Court's recommendation for his removal based on the panel's report "usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office".

"This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," it says.

Justice Varma has said the top court's in-house procedure to probe the matter was "improper and invalid" because there was no formal complaint against him. The judge has also flagged the top court's "unprecedented public disclosure of these unverified allegations via press release" and said it had subjected him to "media trial, resulting in irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career as a judicial officer". The proceedings, he said, had "violated natural justice, reasonableness and fairness under Article 14".

"The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only 'incriminating' material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage (despite Petitioner's requests), denied opportunities of personal hearing, did not put any specific/tentative case to the Petitioner, impermissibly reversed the burden of proof without notice to the Petitioner, and effectively hindered any effective defence by the Petitioner," the judge has said in his petition.

Justice Varma has said he had been asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an "unduly restricted timeline", failing which he was informed that action to initiate his "removal" would be initiated.

The judge's counsel filed an application seeking permission to file the petition without disclosing his identity, Supreme Court records show.