Supreme Court holds that in-house inquiries against judges are valid despite the 1985 Protection Act. Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to the probe process was rejected.
New Delhi: In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India has for the first time ruled that the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, does not stop or interfere with the Supreme Court’s power to initiate in-house inquiries against sitting High Court judges under its 1999 in-house procedure.
The judgment came while rejecting a plea by Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, who was under scrutiny following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi during a fire incident.
ALSO READ: Justice Yashwant Varma And Burnt Cash Found at Delhi Bungalow: A Timeline Of Events
A two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih gave a detailed ruling in the matter. The Court clarified that the 1985 Act, meant to protect judges from frivolous proceedings for actions done in their official capacity, cannot be used to shield judges from in-house disciplinary inquiries.
Supreme Court’s View on Judges (Protection) Act and In-House Procedure
The bench made it clear that there is no conflict between the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and the in-house inquiry procedure adopted by the judiciary in 1999. The Court said:
“This decision could be the first of judicial pronouncements by this Court touching Section 3(2) of the Protection Act vis-à-vis the PROCEDURE.”
The Court emphasised that the in-house mechanism is not illegal or unconstitutional and that it complements the constitutional framework instead of contradicting it.
“In our considered opinion, the Protection Act does not offend the constitutional scheme present; and, being in addition to the extant provisions, does not affect the Supreme Court’s authority to take such action, as deemed fit, against a Judge of a High Court who is alleged to have indulged in misconduct in terms of the PROCEDURE.”
The bench pointed out that no earlier judgment had looked at the exact relationship between the 1985 Act and the internal system of inquiry set up by the Supreme Court. They added:
“We propose to deal with it in some detail while assigning reasons for our firm opinion on applicability of the Protection Act in the instant case.”
Interpreting Section 3 of the Protection Act
Section 3 of the Act protects judges from civil or criminal cases for actions done during their official duties. But sub-section (2) allows other authorities, including the Supreme Court, to take action against a judge in other forms.
The Court interpreted the words “or otherwise” in this sub-section to mean that the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiries are valid under this clause.
“The PROCEDURE contemplating a fact-finding inquiry can and does very well fit in the mould of the word ‘otherwise’.”
The Court stressed that each word in a law must be given meaning, and nothing should be seen as extra or useless.
Broad Definition of “Judge” Under the Act
The Court further said that the word “judge” in the Act includes many types of judicial officers, even tribunal members and quasi-judicial officials. Hence, various authorities, including state and central governments and courts, are empowered to act.
In-House Inquiry Is Legally Backed, Not Just Ethical
To clarify whether the in-house procedure has any legal standing, the Court referred to an older judgment, C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, which led to the development of the in-house system.
“Once the dicta in C. Ravichandran Iyer (supra) constitutes a precedent, it is law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is judicial legislation that emerged because of the vacuum in the field of disciplining a Judge who shows signs of delinquency.”
The bench said that the Full Court’s resolution in 1999 to adopt the in-house mechanism is fully valid and has legal force.
Role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Not Passive
Justice Varma had argued that the CJI acted merely as a messenger when forwarding the inquiry report and his reply to the President and Prime Minister. The Court strongly rejected this.
“We have no hesitation to say that the CJI is not a mere post office between the COMMITTEE and the President/the Prime Minister…We see no justification to hold that in so forwarding, the CJI may not give his own views.”
The Court also noted that this communication is confidential and is not meant for the Parliament.
In-House Inquiry Is Not the Same as Removal Process
The judgment again clarified that the in-house mechanism is only a step to collect facts and not a way to remove a judge. The constitutional removal process only begins if there is “proved misbehaviour”.
“In-house inquiry or its report forming part of the PROCEDURE in itself does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained procedure.”
Uploading Evidence Publicly Was Improper, But No Relief Given
Justice Varma had raised concern over the fact that the Supreme Court published photos and videos of the fire and cash recovery on its website during the inquiry. The Court agreed that such action was not part of the in-house procedure and was improper.
“Placing incriminating evidence available against a Judge under probe in the public domain is not a measure provided in the PROCEDURE… such uploading may not be considered proper.”
However, the Court denied any relief to Justice Varma since he had not objected to this at the time it happened.
Delay in Filing Case Weakened Justice Varma’s Position
The bench also criticised Justice Varma for not challenging the inquiry earlier. He participated in the process and only approached the Court after the report was submitted and forwarded.
“The conduct of the Petitioner, therefore, does not inspire much confidence for us to entertain the writ petition.”
The Court said he should have raised objections earlier, especially in his written reply dated May 6, 2025.
Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Justice Varma.
Background of the Case
The matter began on March 14 when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s residence. Firefighters who responded reportedly discovered bundles of unaccounted cash burning inside. A video also surfaced that showed cash burning in the flames.
Justice Varma denied all allegations of corruption and called the incident a conspiracy to frame him. This led the Chief Justice of India to set up an in-house investigation committee on March 22.
Following the controversy, Justice Varma was transferred back to his parent High Court in Allahabad, where he took oath again, but the Chief Justice had ordered that he should not be assigned any judicial work.
The in-house probe committee was made up of:
- Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court),
- Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and
- Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court).
The committee started its inquiry on March 25 and submitted its final report on May 3. Former CJI Khanna received the report on May 4 and forwarded it to the President of India, recommending Justice Varma’s removal from office.
Justice Varma, in his petition, claimed that this entire procedure was wrong because it was initiated without a complaint and did not follow the principles of natural justice. He also said the committee did not tell him how the inquiry would be done, nor was he allowed to respond properly to the evidence.
He questioned the findings regarding the cash, stating that it was not clear whose money it was and how much was recovered.
He also accused CJI Khanna of forcing him to resign or retire within an “unduly restricted timeline.”
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi and Sidharth Luthra and Advocates George Pothan Poothicote, Manisha Singh, amongst others also appeared for Justice Verma
CASE TITLE:
XXX Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Trial Against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Viral Snake Venom Party Case
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
