New Delhi, July 15 (IANS) Former Supreme Court judge Justice (retired) Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Tuesday opposed any move to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma in the cash haul matter on the basis of an in-house inquiry alone, suggesting further investigation on other aspects of the episode.

Justice (retd) Kaul told IANS, “The report of the fact-finding committee cannot help in impeachment. It was meant only to assist the Chief Justice to form an opinion on the matter.”

“According to me, an investigation should have been done further as the next step. Also, it was necessary to protect some things, at least the area. Especially, as the Judge was not there. There is no ban even now, the Chief Justice can get an investigation done, there is no ban,” he said.

Talking about the scope and purpose of the Committee, Justice Kaul said, “There was a limited purpose behind the report, and even members of the panel were of the view that further investigation should be taken up. I believe that if the Chief Justice felt that there was material in it, then an investigation was necessary.”

He said there is a need to trigger the investigative process before a judge is made to face severe consequences on the basis of an in-house inquiry that was only aimed at assisting the CJI.

“There are many questions which need to be investigated. There are many questions like how much currency was there, whose was it, what did the fire department do, they left that area open, no panchnama was made for it, how was the cleaning done there?” said Justice Kaul.

“According to me, the next step should have been an investigation. An FIR should have been registered, and an investigation should have been done. And only then can it be known what the truth is. The report of the fact-finding committee alone cannot help in impeachment,” he said.

Justice Kaul’s views on the matter coincide with those of Congress leader and former Law Minister Kapil Sibal, who earlier said, “There is no provision in the Constitution that allows a judge to be removed solely based on the findings of an in-house inquiry. The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, lays down the procedure to be followed for judicial accountability. Bypassing that would be illegal and a gross violation of constitutional safeguards.”

Justice Varma, formerly a judge of the Delhi High Court, came under scrutiny after burnt cash was allegedly recovered from a storeroom in his official residence in the national capital.

Following these allegations, the Supreme Court constituted an in-house inquiry committee, which submitted its report to the CJI. The report has been forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office and the President for further action.

An impeachment motion in Parliament for the removal of a sitting judge requires the signatures of 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. At least two-thirds of the members of the respective House need to support the motion to ensure it gets passed.

Earlier, sources said, the three-member committee appointed by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had indicted Justice Varma, finding serious substance in allegations of judicial misconduct, and recommended the initiation of removal proceedings.

According to the committee, both direct and electronic evidence confirmed that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family, sources said.

–IANS

rch/dpb