The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging the in-house inquiry panel’s report holding him guilty of misconduct in the cash-discovery row, but wondered why the high court judge didn’t raise any objection earlier.

“Why did you then appear at all before the committee? Why did you not challenge it then and there?” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih asked advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma.

The bench remarked that the panel’s adverse findings must have taken Justice Varma by surprise. “Should we say that you took a chance of getting some favourable findings? You are a constitutional authority, you cannot say I don’t know or I am not aware of the restatement of judicial values,” Justice Datta, heading the bench, observed.

Sibal said Justice Varma was a victim of injustice, arguing that a judge could not be a subject matter of public debate before the beginning of his impeachment process.

“After a tape was released on March 22, the entire country started discussing a sitting constitution bench judge. The man is already convicted in public discourse,” he said.

Interpreting Articles 124(4) and (5) relating to the impeachment of a high court judge, Sibal said Justice Varma could not have been restrained from discharging his judicial duties.

The senior counsel told the court that the release of tapes, publication on websites, public outrage and media debates were contrary to the Constitution, adding that the “entire procedure has turned political”.

This prompted Justice Datta to comment that “impeachment itself is a political process”.

“If cash is found in an outhouse, how does one prove it’s mine? How can it be linked to me?” Sibal argued on behalf of Justice Varma.

“The police FIR, staff statements, everything was there, and cash was recovered,” Justice Datta countered.

Sibal said Justice Varma’s staff members were not present when police and fire services personnel recovered the money.

The inquiry panel had held that there was evidence of “unimpeachable character” to hold that the massive unaccounted for currency wads were destroyed in a fire at the official Delhi residence of Justice Varma on May 14 and his “misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of (impeachment) proceedings”.