Supreme Court Today (Aug 7) dismissed Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against the in-house committee’s findings after cash was found at his residence. The Court upheld the CJI’s procedure and recommendation for his removal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today rejected a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma had challenged the recommendation made by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Sanjiv Khanna, to remove him from his position.
This recommendation came after a large amount of cash was allegedly found at his official residence in Delhi following a fire incident.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih said that the way the in-house committee was formed and the steps it took for the inquiry were not illegal.
“We have held that CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then. We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future. With this we have dismissed the writ petition,”
-the Supreme Court stated.
Justice Varma had approached the Court to declare that the recommendation for his removal was unconstitutional and not as per law. He also questioned the in-house committee’s report, which had found him guilty based on the recovered cash.
According to Justice Varma, there was no formal complaint against him, yet the in-house inquiry was started. He claimed that by publishing the allegations through a press release, the Supreme Court exposed him to an “unprecedented” media trial.
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.”
Arguments in Court
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, told the Court that an in-house committee can only give suggestions and cannot be the sole reason for impeachment.
He argued that the committee’s findings cannot automatically lead to removal as per the Constitution (Article 124) and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
“In-house process was placed in 1999 for seeing what action can be taken. Chief justice is not a post office and he also has some duties towards the nation. If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct he can inform that and that he has informed the President and Prime Minister that is all,”
-said Justice Dipankar Datta during the hearing.
The bench also questioned why Justice Varma delayed filing the petition.
“If you challenge the constitutionality of the provisions you should have come early…you say you are not heard and then there is delay. Whatever observations you are getting now, you could have got then,”
-Justice Datta observed.
In response, Sibal argued:
“But it is about my fundamental rights. I can raise the points now.”
The bench replied:
“You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only parliament can do it you should have come then and there.”
Sibal also pointed out that Justice Varma was not given a chance to cross-examine witnesses.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing Justice Varma, reminded the court about the case of former SC judge Justice Soumitra Sen.
“Please see Soumitra Sen case of Kolkata. It is stated he was called and was heard,”
-Rohatgi said.
Despite all arguments, the Supreme Court ruled that the process followed by the CJI and the committee was legally correct.
The Court observed that the Chief Justice has a duty beyond just forwarding recommendations and that the in-house process is meant to uphold the judiciary’s integrity.
The Bench framed 6 questions for consideration, and gave the following rulings
1. Maintainability: The Court held that the conduct of the petitioner did not inspire confidence. As a result, the writ petition was not entertained.
2. Challenge to Procedure: The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Paragraph 5 of the in-house procedure violates Articles 214 and 217 of the Constitution, calling the challenge “without merit.”
3. Alleged Procedural Deviations: The Court found no deviation in the process adopted by the CJI or the inquiry committee, barring the non-uploading of video recordings, which, it noted, was never raised as a grievance.
4. CJI’s Role Under Para 7(2): The bench ruled that the Chief Justice forwarding the inquiry report to the President under Paragraph 7(2) was not unconstitutional.
5. Right to Personal Hearing: The Court dismissed the contention that the petitioner was denied a personal hearing, observing that the procedure did not require one.
6. Relief Sought: The writ petition was dismissed in full.
Additionally, the Court dismissed a separate plea by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma.
Concurrent to Justice Varma’s now-junked petition, the government had begun the impeachment process on July 21, when the current monsoon session of Parliament began.
Over 145 MPs from across party lines submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row.
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 PREVIOUS REPORTS ON JUSTICE VARMA:
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
