The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will set up a bench to hear Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging the legal validity of the in-house inquiry committee, which confirmed charges of recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
Former Delhi High Court judge Justice Varma, who is facing an impeachment motion following a probe into allegations of cash being found at his official residence in New Delhi, moved the Supreme Court on July 18. Justice Varma called the in-house inquiry mechanism, which indicted him, “a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism”.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, leading a team of lawyers, mentioned the plea on Justice Varma’s behalf before a bench presided by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai. “We have raised some constitutional issues. We request Your Lordships to list it as early as possible,” Sibal said.
“I will have to constitute a bench. I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was part of that conversation. I will just take a call and constitute a bench,” said CJI Gavai.
In his plea, Justice Varma said, “Primarily, the In-House Procedure, adopted via a 1999 Full Court Resolution to handle complaints against judges and preserve judicial independence while maintaining public faith, unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding”.
“By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which exclusively vest powers for removal of Judges of the High Courts in Parliament through an address supported by a special majority, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,” it said.
The plea said administrative or self-regulating procedures adopted by the Supreme Court “cannot circumvent or override the constitutionally protected tenure of High Court judges or imbue the Hon’ble CJI with unregulated authority to act as the arbiter of the fate of other judges of the High Courts/this Hon’ble Court”.
Story continues below this ad
The plea also raised questions over the Supreme Court decision to make public the purported video showing wads of burnt currency notes at his residence as being “ex facie disproportionate and violative of the law”. It stated that this disclosure gave rise to a media trial, which the Supreme Court itself had barred in its own rulings.
“Unprecedented public disclosure of these unverified allegations via press release by this Hon’ble Court on 22.03.2025 subjected the Petitioner to media trial, resulting in irreparable damage to his personal reputation and career as a judicial officer,” the plea stated.
Justice Varma also challenged the conclusions of the report by the three-member in-house judicial panel.
Appointed by the Chief Justice of India on March 22, a week after currency notes were found at Justice Varma’s official residence where a fire broke out on March 14, the panel comprised Justices Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court; and Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The panel found credence in the allegations against Justice Varma.
Story continues below this ad
With the argument that the findings of the report are without due process and inadequate, Justice Varma, in his plea, questioned every consequential action that flows from the report, including the CJI’s recommendation.
