Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has strongly criticized the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report regarding Justice Yashwant Varma, stating that it lacks constitutional validity. Sibal argues that the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, is the only constitutionally recognized mechanism for investigating allegations against a judge.

Sibal emphasized that under Article 124 of the Constitution, an inquiry committee can only be established under the Judges Inquiry Act if a motion is moved by at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha. He asserted that Parliament alone possesses the authority to form such a committee. According to Sibal, after an investigation is conducted under the law, a decision concerning a judge's misconduct or incapacity can be made. Any impeachment motion requires a two-thirds majority in a joint session of both Houses to be successful.

Sibal questioned the basis for declaring Justice Varma guilty, particularly when ministers have already made statements to that effect. He argued that the Constitution does not recognize any in-house procedure for such investigations. Sibal also raised concerns about the public disclosure of the in-house report in Justice Varma's case, noting that previous similar reports were kept confidential.

The controversy surrounding Justice Varma stems from an incident where burnt banknotes were discovered at his Delhi residence. A Supreme Court-appointed committee investigated the matter, leading to a recommendation for his removal. Justice Varma has denied any knowledge of the cash. Following the incident, Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial responsibilities.

Sibal has accused the government of adopting double standards by fast-tracking the investigation against Justice Varma while allegedly stalling similar action against Justice Shekhar Yadav, who faced accusations of making communal remarks. Sibal noted that while the government is eager to move an impeachment motion against Justice Varma, it has delayed acting on the motion against Justice Yadav. He also questioned the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's attempts to verify his signature on the impeachment notice against Justice Yadav. Sibal has suggested the government is protecting Justice Yadav because his retirement is approaching in 2026.

Sibal has defended Justice Varma, calling him "one of the finest judges". He has also alleged that the government's actions against Justice Varma are a pretext to undermine the collegium system and gain control over judicial appointments. He stated that initiating the removal of Justice Varma based on the Supreme Court's in-house report would be unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent for judicial independence.