The Supreme Court of India has taken up a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash impeachment proceedings initiated against him following the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence earlier this year. The court has sought a response from the Lok Sabha Speaker and the secretaries-general of both Houses of Parliament regarding the matter.

The case stems from an incident on March 14, 2025, when half-burnt ₹500 currency notes were found at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi. At the time, Justice Varma was a judge of the Delhi High Court. Following the incident, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house probe and set up a three-member committee to investigate the matter. The inquiry committee comprised Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, and senior advocate B.V. Acharya.

Justice Varma was subsequently transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. He then challenged the in-house inquiry report, but the Supreme Court dismissed his plea on August 7, 2025, observing that the in-house procedure had been scrupulously followed.

The Lok Sabha Speaker then constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to further investigate the allegations and conduct removal proceedings against Justice Varma. This committee is tasked with determining the veracity of the allegations against Justice Varma.

Justice Varma is now challenging the legality of the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to form this committee. He argues that the Speaker acted unilaterally in constituting the committee on August 12, 2025, after a motion was presented before the Lok Sabha on July 21, 2025, while a separate motion submitted to the Rajya Sabha on the same day had not been admitted. Justice Varma contends that this violates the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which stipulates that the Speaker or Rajya Sabha chairman can only act unilaterally after motions in both houses of Parliament have been admitted.

Justice Varma further argues that the Speaker's action is illegal as it disregards the Supreme Court's directives, which stated that the earlier report from the in-house procedure committee (dated May 3) cannot be relied upon in this case. He claims that the August 12 order passed by the Lok Sabha Speaker should be quashed as unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution, which pertain to the removal process of High Court judges. Article 218 specifies that a High Court judge can only be removed by the President following a special address by Parliament, supported by a two-thirds majority, citing proven misbehavior or incapacity.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih issued notice on Justice Varma's plea, seeking responses from the Lok Sabha Speaker and secretaries-general of both the Houses. The next hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2026.