The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can begin the removal of a judge even if the Chief Justice of India (CJI) chooses not to recommend it. The Court upheld the independence of Parliament’s authority in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, clearly said that Parliament has full power to start the process of removing a judge, even if the Chief Justice of India (CJI) decides not to recommend such removal.
This important decision confirms that the CJI’s recommendation is not required for Parliament to act.
ALSO READ: Justice Yashwant Varma And Burnt Cash Found at Delhi Bungalow: A Timeline Of Events
A Bench made up of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih was looking into whether the Supreme Court’s in-house method to examine complaints against judges is a separate or “extra-constitutional” process (not mentioned in the Constitution).
Some people had argued that this internal process was running like a second, unofficial system alongside the Constitution.
But the Court made it absolutely clear that Parliament’s power in these matters is untouched and fully protected by the Constitution.
“Report or no report, recommendation or no recommendation, whatever is the case, the Parliament’s power to initiate proceedings for removal of a Judge for alleged misbehaviour or incapacity remains unfettered. Even though there could be a case where good grounds for initiation of proceedings do exist, the Parliament may in its wisdom elect not to go ahead to initiate proceedings for removal,”
-the Court held.
The Court added something more important:
“Contrarily, even if it is reported by the Committee under the PROCEDURE that there exists any of the two situations [para 5(a) or 5(c)] and the CJI, accepting such report, does not make any recommendation, nothing prevents the Parliament to initiate proceedings for removal if for reasons aliunde it considers necessary so to do.”
In simple terms, even if the Committee finds something wrong and the CJI still chooses not to recommend removal, Parliament can still begin the removal process if it feels it’s the right thing to do.
The Court also pointed out that if Parliament does not take any action even when there’s strong evidence of a judge being involved in serious misconduct or being unfit to continue, then no court can force Parliament to act.
“The power, competence, authority and jurisdiction of the Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of the nation is left untrammelled by the PROCEDURE; hence, it is fallacious to argue that the PROCEDURE is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism for removal of a Judge,”
-the Court stated.
This judgment was given in response to a plea by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. The case began after unaccounted cash was found during a fire at his official Delhi residence. A fact-finding committee looked into the matter and submitted a report to the CJI, recommending that removal proceedings be started.
The CJI forwarded this report, along with the judge’s written response, to the President and the Prime Minister. However, Justice Varma challenged the process in the Supreme Court, claiming it was unconstitutional and violated his rights.
But the Supreme Court did not agree with this argument. The Court said the in-house process is legal and does not go against the Judges (Protection) Act.
The judges also pointed out that it would be wrong to expect the CJI to remain silent when serious allegations are made against a judge.
“It is unreasonable to even think that despite an incident of the present nature, the CJI would wait for the Parliament to take action. As observed before, it is up to the Parliament whether or not to activate Article 124. Left to him, the CJI upon being informed of a Judge’s remissness does have the authority – moral, ethical and legal – to take such necessary action as is warranted to keep institutional integrity intact. Any adverse impact on the credibility of the institution could prove dear,”
-the Court observed.
Lastly, the Court highlighted that judges must act very carefully and wisely. The internal procedure does allow withdrawing judicial work from a judge as a strong step, but other less severe steps can also be taken if needed.
“The Judges should, therefore, act cautiously and exercise their discretion wisely, to evade creation of a situation where initiating action becomes imperative,”
-it said.
Timeline Of Events
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the plea filed by Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma.
He had asked the court to cancel a report by an in-house inquiry panel set up by the Supreme Court itself. This report had found him guilty of serious misconduct.
- The matter started on the night of March 14, when a fire broke out around 11:35 PM at Justice Varma’s official bungalow located at 30 Tughlak Crescent, New Delhi. While trying to control the fire, fire officials reportedly found bundles of burnt cash at the site. This unusual discovery led to a chain of events that later ended with a serious report recommending that the judge should be removed from his position.
- On March 15, officials from the Delhi High Court visited the scene of the fire. This was done under instructions from the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. Just two days later, on March 17, Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyay met with then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to discuss the matter.
- On March 20, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice shared photographs and videos from the fire site with the CJI. On the same day, an English news daily, The Times of India (TOI), published a report revealing the alleged finding of semi-burnt cash at Justice Varma’s residence. This report made the incident public and raised serious concerns.
- Following this, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice wrote to the CJI and requested a more detailed investigation into the matter.
- On March 21, the CJI asked Justice Varma to submit a written reply by noon of March 22. The Supreme Court collegium also began thinking about transferring Justice Varma to his original High Court, the Allahabad High Court.
- On March 22, Justice Varma submitted his response and denied all the charges. “I trash all allegations,” he stated in his reply. That same day, CJI Sanjiv Khanna set up a three-member committee to investigate the allegations. The Supreme Court also uploaded the full in-house inquiry report along with photos and videos related to the incident on its official website.
- On March 28, Justice Varma was officially transferred to the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court also instructed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court “not to assign any judicial work” to Justice Varma.
- On May 3, the committee submitted its report and found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. It clearly recommended his removal from the position of a judge.
- On May 8, then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote letters to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending that “Justice Yashwant Varma be impeached,” as the judge refused to resign voluntarily.
- On July 17, Justice Varma approached the Supreme Court and filed a petition to cancel the report by the in-house panel. He argued that the report was unfair and invalid. Later, on July 23, he requested the top court for an urgent hearing on his petition.
- On July 30, the Supreme Court completed the hearings and reserved its final judgment. Finally, on August 7, the Supreme Court gave its verdict and dismissed Justice Varma’s plea.
With this, the Supreme Court made it clear that the findings of the in-house panel will stand, and the recommendation for his removal due to misconduct is valid.
Yesterday’s Hearing In Apex Court
The Supreme Court of India 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
