New Delhi: The Supreme Court today, July 28, asked Justice Yashwant Varma how he could challenge the inquiry held on the discovery of cash at his household even after he had participated in the process.

LiveLaw has reported that a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing Justice Varma's writ petition challenging the in-house inquiry report which indicted him in the scandal.

Justice Datta said that the petition "should not have been filed," and that while there are three respondents, Justice Varma's "main issue is with the Supreme Court."

Appearing for Justice Varma, senior advocate Kapil Sibal greed to change the memo of parties.

Sibal held that a judge can be removed only as per Article 124 of the constitution. He said that the in-house inquiry committee's probe did not follow due procedure.

"Tape is released on March 22, the whole country talks about it, man already stands convicted...," Sibal said.

Justice Verma was a Delhi high court judge when controversy erupted over the discovery of a large amount of cash from a room damaged by fire at his official residence.

A judicial panel comprising Punjab and Haryana high court chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh high court chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Karnataka high court Justice Anu Sivaraman, found “strong inferential evidence” of the judge’s “covert or active control” over the cash. Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had made the report public and recommended Justice Varma’s resignation. Sibal highlighted the latter point and told the court that the CJI did not have such powers.

Sibal said today that the process has been politicised, to which Justice Datta noted that even the impeachment process is political. All political parties are backing the notice for Justice Varma's impeachment in the parliament.

Justice Datta also hauled Justice Varma up for participation in a process he disagreed with. "Why did you appear before the committee? You are a constitutional authority, you can't say I don't know," Justice Datta said. Sibal said that Justice Varma has raised the contentions before the committee.

Sibal also argued that the cash did not belong to Justice Varma and that there was no established "misbehaviour" in this discovery.

Justice Datta also stressed that the in-house committee report was a "preliminary ad hoc finding in the in-house procedure" and not "evidence". Sibal has noted that the impeachment motion in the parliament hinged on the release of the video.

Veteran lawyer Indira Jaising had earlier told The Wire that while Varma continues to say he is innocent and that there is a conspiracy to malign him, the Supreme Court panel’s findings and conclusions would be immaterial in an impeachment case.

"Did you come to the court to request that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Why did you not challenge when committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past. You could have approached us earlier as well," Justice Datta charged.

The bench adjourned the hearing till July 30.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.