Judgment Pending on Varma's Petition Challenging Panel Report Decision
The Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict on a writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging an in-house inquiry report that indicted him for misconduct in the cash discovery matter at his official residence.
Justice Varma, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argues that the in-house procedure followed to recommend his removal did not comply with constitutional due process under Article 124 of the Constitution. He seeks a declaration that the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) recommendation for his removal was "non-est" (non-existent) and unconstitutional.
Sibal contends that the proper procedure for a judge's removal involves mechanisms prescribed under Article 124, and the in-house process used should not be treated as valid grounds to remove a judge. He further argues that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, prescribes a comprehensive procedure for the removal of judges, and any parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism is unconstitutional.
The bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, raised procedural and substantive issues during the hearing. They questioned why the petition was filed against multiple respondents (Supreme Court and Union of India), whether the inquiry report was properly attached to the petition, and highlighted that Justice Varma had participated in the inquiry process he was now challenging.
Justice Datta remarked that if established case law on in-house procedures, such as K Veeraswami and Ravichandran Iyer, were to be followed, the matter might be straightforward. However, he also countered that three Supreme Court judgments have reaffirmed the in-house procedure since its inception, and the members of these inquiry committees are of "high calibre" and would not be influenced by a preliminary in-house report.
The court also questioned why Justice Varma did not challenge the jurisdiction of the in-house inquiry committee then and there, and why he did not approach the Supreme Court earlier. The bench noted that the in-house process gives the CJI duties beyond those of a mere "post office."
The in-house panel found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct over the discovery of a significant cache of burnt cash during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. The Supreme Court uploaded the in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos of the cash discovered at Justice Varma's residence, on its website on March 22. However, the court has stated that the preliminary in-house report cannot dictate future proceedings.
The petition was filed anonymously under the title "XXX v. Union of India." The Supreme Court is also considering a separate petition seeking FIR registration against Justice Yashwant Varma. The apex court expressed that Justice Varma's conduct did not inspire confidence and questioned why he approached the court only after being found guilty by the in-house committee.
As of July 30, 2025, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment and has yet to announce a decision on the matter. The court has also reserved its order on Nedumpara's petition, a separate case related to the same issue. The CJI's recommendation for removal, as per Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, "sounds the death knell" for a judge and sets a dangerous precedent.
Sports should not be compared to the judicial system, as this case revolves around the removal of a judge due to alleged misconduct. The in-house inquiry report that indicted Justice Yashvarma for misconduct should not be considered as a valid ground for the removal of a judge, as it allegedly did not comply with constitutional due process under Article 124 of the Constitution.
