Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court is facing an uphill battle as he seeks to quash an inquiry report that could lead to his impeachment. The report stems from the discovery of charred currency notes at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year. Justice Varma has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the actions initiated against him, including the formation of the in-house inquiry committee and the recommendation for his removal.

The controversy began on March 14, when a fire broke out at an outhouse at Justice Varma's residence. Firefighters reportedly found sacks filled with charred currency. The then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court brought the incident to the attention of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who then formed a three-member inquiry panel. The committee, headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, submitted its report on May 3, concluding that Justice Varma was liable for misconduct.

The inquiry panel stated that Justice Varma and his family had control over the storeroom where the cash was found, proving his misconduct. The panel analyzed statements from 55 witnesses and conducted the probe over 10 days. The report indicated that someone had removed remnants of the burnt currency the morning after the fire and that Justice Varma was aware of this. The committee's report stated that the judge's conduct "belied the trust" reposed in a constitutional court judge and amounted to serious judicial misconduct warranting impeachment.

In response to the inquiry, Justice Varma was divested of his judicial work and transferred to his parent high court in Allahabad. Then CJI Sanjiv Khanna advised Justice Varma to either resign or opt for voluntary retirement following the panel's findings. However, Justice Varma refused, stating that stepping down would be an acceptance of a "fundamentally unjust" process.

Justice Varma's petition argues that the inquiry panel's findings were based on a preconceived narrative and that the inquiry timelines were rushed, compromising "procedural fairness". He claims he was not given a full and fair hearing and that the panel drew adverse findings without allowing him to properly defend himself. He also raises questions about why the police did not seize the cash or prepare a 'panchnama' and why he did not file a FIR.

Justice Varma's plea also questions the basis of the probe, arguing that the in-house procedure extends beyond its intended scope of self-regulation. He argues that the judiciary cannot assume the role of a legislature by recommending the removal of sitting judges and that the in-house procedure unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation. He also contends that the Supreme Court's press release disclosing the allegations against him led to a media trial, causing irreparable damage to his reputation.

The Supreme Court registry has pointed out several defects in Justice Varma's petition. Even if these are resolved and the petition is listed for hearing, it may face questions about its maintainability. Moreover, with over 100 Members of Parliament having signed a notice to bring a removal motion in Lok Sabha, Justice Varma's petition could become irrelevant if the Supreme Court does not hear it before the motion is tabled in Parliament. The government is planning to move a motion to remove Varma in the Parliament's Monsoon session beginning July 21.