Oppn must tell govt -- no support in Varma matter till inquiry set up against Yadav: Sibal

New Delhi: The opposition must not support any move by the government to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma till an inquiry is set up under impeachment proceedings against Justice Shekhar Yadav for his "communal" remarks, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal said on Saturday.

In an interview with PTI, Sibal contended that the case of Varma, who is embroiled in a row following the discovery of burnt wads of currency at his residence after a fire incident, was not one of corruption and so the parties thinking that they should support action against the judge as it is graft matter should review their position.

The Independent Rajya Sabha MP claimed there could be two motives of the government in moving ahead with bringing an impeachment motion against Varma -- they are unhappy with with him because he is "one of the most independent High Court judges" and alternatively they may be thinking that this is a "great opportunity to put pressure on the courts" and try to bring another form of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

"I think the institution has broad enough shoulders to withstand such moves of the government," he said.

Asked if the situation arises would he be ready to defend Varma in Parliament during impeachment proceedings, Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said, "This is just an academic issue, first the judge has to ask me."

Sibal's remarks come amid the government beginning the exercise of collecting signatures of MPs to move a motion in Parliament to remove Justice Varma.

Sources said signatures of many MPs from the Lok Sabha have been collected for the impeachment exercise, an indication that the motion may be moved in the Lower House.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has said that a motion to remove Varma will be brought in Parliament's next session, beginning from July 21.

Slamming the government for moving ahead with collecting signatures, Sibal said, "First of all, what has the government got to do with this? Under the Constitution, either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha can move a motion for impeachment. The Constitution process dehors the government."

The fact that the government is collecting signatures means that it is interested as an entity to move the motion and impeach him, whereas the Constitutional process dehors the government, he said.

"I am a bit surprised but this is what happens when you have governments moving impeachment motions. Obviously, they don't want the judge for reasons that they know best," Sibal told PTI.

Asked what would be his message to opposition parties, Sibal said this is not an issue of parties at all and even the government is erroneously moving through by collecting signatures.

"It has nothing to do with the government, it has nothing to do with opposition parties. It is something to do with members of Parliament. If the opposition parties give a diktat, fifty MPs will sign. And if a government gives a diktat, a hundred will sign. But the question is, this itself is constitutionally impermissible," he contended.

Sibal said the opposition should get together and say what he has been saying -- "before an MP appends his signatures on the motion, there should be an investigation".

And because the judge belongs to the higher judiciary and there is a special constitutional procedure for impeachment, it is the Supreme Court that should actually move the matter and lodge an FIR for finding out as to who put the money there, he said.

He also said that the opposition should first seek the setting up of an inquiry against Justice Yadav under impeachment proceedings after the opposition MPs in December 2024 submitted a notice in the Rajya Sabha to move an impeachment motion against him for allegedly making "communal remarks" last year at a VHP event.

"Otherwise, it seems that this (action against Justice Varma) is being selectively done by the government and the BJP is after this judge and is protecting the other judge. That should be the right stand of the opposition parties," Sibal said.

"I think, leaders of the opposition should take a position that no question of us supporting this motion till such time as the inquiry (against Yadav) is completed or you (at least) set up the inquiry against Justice Yadav," Sibal said.

Delving into the Justice Varma case, he said it is a very peculiar one but is "not a case of corruption".

"I think some political parties are thinking that because it is a case of corruption, therefore, we must support. They must get it out of their minds because this has nothing to do with corruption," he said.

Detailing the sequence of events, Sibal said, "Where is the cash?...the fire happened about 11:30 PM on March 14 and the fire services department reached there and doused the fire.

"It is between 11:59 PM and 12:11 AM that certain videos were taken and the police were present there. The police as well as the fire services personnel were present at the site till 1:56 AM (March 15). Between 12:11 AM and 1:56 AM, we have no idea as to what happened to the cash."

The police could have also lodged an FIR against unknown persons because they did not know who placed the cash there, Sibal said.

"They should have seized some currency and if you got a few notes that were complete and not burnt, the police could have found out which bank it came from, when it was recovered, what is the source of it, some investigation would have been done," he said.

Sibal claimed that the Delhi police "completely failed" to do its job. "The fire services department don't do their job, the Delhi police don't do their job the committee doesn't do its job in finding out as how that money was placed there and the entire burden is shifted to the judge who says 'the money does not belong to me and I did not know how it came there'.

"So how do you move an impeachment motion against this evidence," Sibal asked. He said the Supreme Court committee's findings have no constitutional relevance because it is part of an in-house procedure.