New Delhi, July 28, 2025 — The Supreme Court on Monday closely examined the petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the legality of an in-house judicial committee that had indicted him following the recovery of a substantial amount of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi. A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih questioned the timing and procedural grounds of the petition.
Key Questions Raised by the Bench
The top court expressed surprise over why Justice Varma chose to participate in the proceedings of the in-house committee if he believed its constitution to be unconstitutional.
“Why did you not challenge the constitution of the committee when it was formed? Why wait until it completed its inquiry?” Justice Datta asked.
The Bench noted that past judges have abstained from such inquiries when they believed the process to be flawed, and emphasized that participation could be construed as implicit acceptance of the process.
In response, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, said that his client participated in the hope that the committee would establish the rightful ownership of the recovered cash and vindicate him.
Background of the Controversy
The matter originates from a fire incident on March 14, 2025, at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. During firefighting operations, a significant quantity of cash was allegedly recovered, with videos surfacing that showed burning bundles of currency. This triggered allegations of corruption and led to the Chief Justice of India at the time, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, constituting a three-judge in-house inquiry committee on March 22, 2025.
The committee, comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana High Court), G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court), conducted its inquiry and submitted its report on May 3, 2025. Based on this, then CJI Khanna recommended Justice Varma’s removal.
Justice Varma’s Legal Stand
Justice Varma has challenged:
- The legality of the in-house inquiry, alleging it was constituted without a formal complaint.
- The press release by the Supreme Court, which he claims subjected him to an “unprecedented media trial.”
- The committee’s failure to provide him an opportunity to respond to evidence or be informed of procedural mechanisms.
- The recommendation of his removal by the former CJI, which he argues violates Article 124(5) of the Constitution.
The petition contends that the entire process — from initiation to public disclosure — violated natural justice and constitutional safeguards. Sibal argued that until “proven misbehaviour” is established under Article 124, a judge’s conduct cannot be scrutinized, even in Parliament.
“If Parliament cannot debate judicial conduct without due process, how can such inquiries and public disclosures be constitutional?” Sibal asked.
Supreme Court’s Procedural Concerns
The Bench also found technical errors in the petition, including incorrect memo of parties. Justice Datta remarked:
“We expect senior counsel to ensure that even procedural details like party names are correct. Your primary grievance is against the process adopted by the Supreme Court, yet the Registrar General is named instead of the Secretary General.”
The Court pointed out that the report of the committee being challenged was not attached to the petition, to which Sibal replied it would be placed on record.
Further, the Court asked:
“Did you first try to get a favourable report from the committee and only challenge it when it went against you?”
Justice Varma, through his counsel, denied this and reiterated his position that the inquiry was flawed from the outset.
Next Steps in Proceedings
The Bench has adjourned the hearing to July 30, 2025, directing Justice Varma’s legal team to file a one-page summary outlining the core constitutional and procedural objections to the in-house inquiry.
“Come with bullet-pointed submissions next time and correct the memo of parties,” the Court said.
The matter is now shaping up as a significant test of constitutional safeguards for sitting judges and the scope of in-house judicial accountability mechanisms.
