Justice Yashwant Varma has challenged his impeachment in the Supreme Court, raising five explosive arguments in his plea that question the panel’s findings and allege conspiracy behind the unaccounted cash discovery at his residence.
Union government prepares to start the process of impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Allahabad High Court, the judge has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the findings of a three-judge panel that found him guilty regarding the discovery of unaccounted cash at his home.
In his petition, Justice Varma contests both the in-house procedure and the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for his removal from the High Court.
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.
Five grounds Justice Varma has presented to the Supreme Court
In-house Procedure is Extra-Constitutional
Justice Varma argues that the in-house procedure, established by the Supreme Court in 1999 to address complaints against judges, unjustifiably extends beyond its intended purpose of self-regulation and fact-finding. He contends that it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that undermines the mandatory framework established under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which grant Parliament exclusive authority to remove judges.
He maintains that the Judges (Inquiry) Act offers a comprehensive process with strict safeguards, whereas the in-house procedure claims parliamentary authority and infringes upon the doctrine of separation of powers.
Supreme Court or CJI Lacks Superintendence Over Judges
Justice Varma also contends that the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India (CJI) any superintendence or disciplinary powers over High Courts or their judges.
He asserts that self-regulating procedures, such as the in-house procedure, cannot bypass or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges, nor can they empower the CJI with unchecked authority to determine the fate of other judges.
In-house Committee Probe Invalid and Violative of Natural Justice
Justice Varma claims that the initiation of the in-house procedure against him was improper, as there was no formal complaint only “presumptive queries” based on unsubstantiated allegations regarding the cash found and its removal after a fire. He alleges that the three-judge panel did not inform him of its process and denied him the opportunity to provide input on the evidence to be collected.
Additionally, he states that witnesses were examined in his absence, and he received only paraphrased statements rather than video recordings. He argues that the committee failed to gather relevant exculpatory evidence, such as CCTV footage, and contends that it was crucial to determine the source and amount of the cash discovered.
Insufficient Time to Review Committee’s Report
Justice Varma asserts that CJI Khanna did not allow him adequate time to review the final report of the committee before recommending his removal. He argues that a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior judges should have been granted prior to any recommendations being made based on the panel’s findings. According to his petition, the CJI pressured him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unreasonably short timeframe.
Media Trial
Justice Varma claims that the Supreme Court’s unprecedented public disclosure of the allegations against him subjected him to a media trial, causing irreparable harm to his reputation and career as a judicial officer. He argues that such public disclosure was excessive and violated legal principles established by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
He points out that media leaks concerning the committee’s final report and skewed coverage of its findings went unaddressed, breaching the confidentiality of the in-house procedure.
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.
Despite Varma’s denial of any wrongdoing, the Supreme Court-appointed committee concluded that he and his family had “covert or active control” over the storeroom where the cash was found, indicating misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal.
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. On March 21, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiated an internal investigation into the allegations, appointing a three-member committee to carry out the inquiry.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India, Diary No.38664/2025