Justice Yashwant Varma, facing potential impeachment proceedings, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court of India challenging an in-house inquiry report that has recommended his removal. In an unusual move, Justice Varma has chosen to conceal his identity in the petition, using "XXX" as his name in the case title: "XXX vs Union of India". This has sparked considerable interest and speculation, as such anonymity is typically reserved for cases involving sexual harassment or assault victims, juveniles, or minors in custody battles.
The case is scheduled to be heard by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih on Monday, July 28, 2025. The petition challenges the validity of the in-house inquiry process and seeks to quash the report that led to the recommendation for his removal.
Justice Varma's troubles began after the discovery of a large amount of cash at an outhouse of his official residence in Delhi, following a fire-fighting operation on March 14, 2025. The in-house inquiry committee, formed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, concluded that Justice Varma's conduct after the fire was "unnatural," leading to adverse inferences against him. The committee submitted its report to CJI Khanna in May, who then forwarded it to the President and Prime Minister after Justice Varma refused to resign.
In his petition, Justice Varma argues that the in-house inquiry committee did not provide him with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. He claims the committee proceeded in a predetermined manner, drawing adverse inferences without concrete evidence and reversing the burden of proof. He also raises concerns about the absence of a formal complaint before the inquiry was initiated. Justice Varma contends that the Supreme Court's decision to upload a press release disclosing the allegations against him led to intense media speculation, adversely affecting his reputation and violating his right to dignity. Furthermore, he claims that the committee denied him the opportunity to rebut the allegations or cross-examine witnesses and that the recommendation for his removal was made without a personal opportunity to explain his case. He also alleges that the committee failed to investigate the basic facts, especially those related to the alleged discovery of cash on March 14. Justice Varma was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent, Allahabad High Court, after the discovery of the cash.
Adding another layer to the situation, a separate petition has been filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, seeking the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma to investigate the source of the cash, its burning, and subsequent disappearance. This petition is also scheduled to be heard by the same bench on Monday.
Meanwhile, a motion for Justice Varma's removal has been admitted in the Lok Sabha, signed by more than 150 Members of Parliament. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is expected to write to CJI B. R. Gavai, seeking the names of a Supreme Court judge and a High Court Chief Justice to form an inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
Justice Varma's petition argues that the in-house inquiry procedure is a "parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism" that usurps the Parliament's exclusive authority to remove judges under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution. He seeks a declaration that the in-house procedure is unconstitutional and that the committee's report and the removal recommendation be declared void. He further contends that the in-house inquiry process threatens judicial independence by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction and concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards.
Chief Justice Gavai has recused himself from hearing the case, stating that he will constitute a separate bench to hear the matter. The use of "XXX" in Justice Varma's petition has drawn attention to the unusual circumstances surrounding the case and raised questions about the reasons for concealing his identity.
