Today, On 30th July, In the Justice Yashwant Varma case, the Supreme Court observed that “your conduct does not inspire confidence” while reserving its judgment on the constitutional challenge to the in-house procedure, raising serious questions over participation in the internal inquiry process.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Wednesday regarding the petition filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, who is challenging the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for his impeachment.
This recommendation comes in light of a significant amount of unaccounted cash found at his official residence in Delhi.
During the hearing, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih noted that Justice Varma’s actions did not inspire confidence, particularly because he approached the Court only after the in-house committee established by the CJI had reached unfavorable conclusions about him.
The Court suggested that it might choose not to intervene in the matter, given that the judge’s removal is currently under consideration by Parliament.
The Bench stated,
“The points you are raising are major, but could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot. You don’t want something to spill here. Let Parliament decide. Why should we decide whether it is your money or not? That was not the remit of the in-house committee,”
This comment referenced Justice Varma’s assertion that the in-house committee failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the source of the cash allegedly found in his residence.
In his petition, Justice Varma requested a declaration stating that the recommendation for his removal as a High Court judge, made by former CJI Khanna, is unconstitutional and beyond legal authority.
Justice Varma argued that the in-house inquiry against him was launched without any formal complaint, and he contended that the Supreme Court’s choice to publicly disclose the allegations via a press release subjected him to an “unprecedented” media trial.
The committee, which included Chief Justice Sheel Nagu from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia from the Himachal High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman from the Karnataka High Court, investigated the allegations related to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s residence.
They commenced their investigation on March 25 and completed the report by May 3, which was subsequently submitted to then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on May 4.
The report found the judge culpable, leading the CJI to forward it to the President while recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.
Following this, he was transferred back to the Allahabad High Court, and an inquiry initiated by Khanna found him culpable.
After Varma refused to resign, Khanna referred the matter to the President and the Prime Minister.
The committee determined, based on forensic and electronic evidence, that the currency was secretly removed in the early hours of March 15, just prior to the matter becoming public.
The committee determined, based on forensic and electronic evidence, that the currency was secretly removed in the early hours of March 15, just prior to the matter becoming public.
After Varma refused to resign, Khanna referred the matter to the President and the Prime Minister.
According to the 64-page report submitted to Sanjiv Khanna on May 4, 2025, by a three-member panel consisting of Justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaraman, burnt cash was found in the storeroom of 30 Tughlak Crescent, Justice Varma’s official residence.
A fire broke out at Justice Varma’s home on the evening of March 14, during which unaccounted cash was inadvertently found by firefighters.
Also Read: Plea in Allahabad High Court: ‘Withhold Oath of Justice Yashwant Varma’
A video depicting the recovery of the burnt cash was reportedly shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were traveling in Madhya Pradesh, leaving only their daughter and elderly mother at home.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and Sidharth Luthra, along with Advocates George Pothan Poothicote, Manisha Singh, and others, appeared on behalf of Justice Verma.
Case Details: XXX v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
