Justice Yashwant Varma, caught in a burning cash scandal worth crores, moves Supreme Court challenging removal; faces tough questions on delay, inquiry process, and judicial accountability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today, on July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court heard Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee and the recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his removal. The case arises from the alleged recovery of burnt currency notes of high value from the judge’s official residence in March 2025.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih heard arguments from Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra for Justice Varma, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union.
Sibal argued that the removal process under Article 124 of the Constitution begins only once a motion is filed before the Speaker or Chairman. Until that point, the matter is not before Parliament, and any public discourse, such as the widespread discussion following a leaked tape in March, undermines the constitutional process and judicial dignity.
He contended that the in-house committee’s report drew adverse conclusions without proper evidence and bypassed the safeguards guaranteed under Articles 124 and 218. Sibal emphasized that the committee’s actions violated natural justice, lacked a formal complaint, and wrongly reversed the burden of proof.
Justice Datta questioned Sibal on several aspects, including:
- Why did Varma participate in the in-house process if it was flawed;
- The role of the President and Council of Ministers in receiving the report;
- Whether the recovery of cash could amount to judicial misbehaviour under the Bangalore Principles;
- And why did Justice Varma not challenge the public release of the video earlier.
Sibal clarified that the report was used to initiate removal without Parliamentary involvement and stressed that public judgment had already tainted the matter. He maintained that the cash recovery was unconnected to Justice Varma, who was not in Delhi during the incident.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had earlier recused himself on July 23, citing prior involvement in related discussions, following which the matter was listed before the current Bench. Justice Varma seeks to have the committee’s findings and the recommendation of May 8, 2025, declared unconstitutional and void, arguing that the in-house process cannot replace the formal removal procedure mandated by the Constitution.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for Wednesday, July 30, 2025, and asked Sibal to submit a concise note outlining his arguments.
Counsel for Justice Varma: Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, began his arguments by questioning the very foundation of the removal process. He cited Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution to argue that a judge’s removal must originate with a formal motion in Parliament, and not from informal or internal procedures.
“Under Article 124, the removal process starts only when a motion is filed before the Speaker or the Chairman. Until then, it is not a proceeding of the House. The judge’s conduct cannot be subject to public debate before that stage,”
Sibal argued.
Sibal objected to the public release of a tape, which showed the burning of cash, claiming it led to a media trial and premature public conviction of Justice Varma.
“The man is already convicted in public discourse,”
he stated, calling the events unconstitutional.
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta raised several procedural and factual concerns. He pointed out defects in the petition, including errors in the memo of parties such as incorrect designations and omissions, remarking,
“This petition should not have been filed like this… We don’t expect senior counsel to miss these basic things.”
On being asked about the availability of the in-house committee report, Sibal stated that it would be attached, prompting Justice Datta to respond firmly,
“You want us to read the report, but it’s not on record.”
Another key point of contention was Justice Varma’s participation in the inquiry itself; when questioned on why he chose to appear before the committee despite claiming the process was flawed, Sibal explained that he had hoped the committee would establish the actual source of the charred cash.
Kapil Sibal raised key constitutional questions during the hearing, asserting that the in-house procedure lacks constitutional authority to initiate a judge’s removal in the absence of a formal complaint or a motion in Parliament.
He argued that the public release of evidence and ensuing commentary violated confidentiality provisions and Article 121, which bars discussions on a judge’s conduct outside Parliament. Sibal further contended that the committee failed to provide him with procedural rules or a fair opportunity to respond, and stressed that the ownership of the recovered cash remained unproven, with no evidence linking it to his staff.
When questioned on whether forwarding the recommendation to the President constituted an overreach, Sibal maintained that judicial removal is a purely legislative function under Article 124(4) and the executive has no constitutional role in the matter.
Justice Datta pointed out that Sibal had not disputed the fire or the recovery of cash, to which Sibal responded that the cash did not belong to him, no member of his staff was present, and ownership had not been established.
When Justice Datta remarked that if the procedure was being challenged, then the inquiry itself could not have been conducted, Sibal clarified that he was challenging the impeachment recommendation—not the sanctity of the in-house procedure itself.
Further, when Justice Datta questioned the evidentiary value of the committee report and how Sibal could be aggrieved by a non-binding document, Sibal emphasized that the report formed the basis of the removal recommendation, which directly impacted him.
Court’s Directions
Justice Datta directed Kapil Sibal to submit a one-page bullet point note outlining the key constitutional questions, rectify the memo of parties, and address issues related to the verification of pleadings. He also instructed that the committee report be formally placed on record.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Wednesday, July 30.
Background
The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, arises from an incident on March 14, 2025, when a fire broke out at his official residence in Delhi. Videos that surfaced online showed cash bundles of high-denomination currency notes, sparking national outrage and whispers of corruption at the highest levels of the judiciary.
This led then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to invoke the in-house procedure, a non-statutory internal mechanism used to examine judicial misconduct. A three-member panel, comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, was constituted. The committee began its inquiry on March 25 and submitted its report on May 3, 2025. CJI Khanna then forwarded the report to the President of India, recommending Justice Varma’s removal.
Justice Varma, however, has now approached the Supreme Court to challenge both the report and the recommendation, terming the entire process unconstitutional, opaque, and procedurally flawed.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Justice Yashwant Varma
