The Supreme Court on Monday, July 28, 2025, sharply questioned the framing and conduct related to Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging an in-house judicial inquiry. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih presided over the hearing, expressing strong reservations about the way the petition was presented. The core issue revolves around the findings of an internal panel that found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct after half-burnt currency notes were discovered at his official residence in Delhi.
Justice Varma's petition seeks to invalidate the findings of the in-house panel and the subsequent recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for his removal. The Supreme Court is scrutinizing whether the in-house procedure was properly invoked against him, especially in the absence of a formal complaint. Justice Varma has also argued that the public disclosure of the allegations through a press release by the Supreme Court subjected him to a media trial.
During the hearing, Justice Datta remarked, "This petition should not have been filed like this". The bench questioned why Justice Varma appeared before the inquiry committee and why he waited until the completion and release of the report to challenge it. The court also pointed out that Justice Varma should have included the in-house inquiry report with his plea.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, contended that the invocation of the in-house procedure against Justice Varma was improper and invalid because it occurred without any formal complaint. Sibal argued that under Article 124 of the Constitution, a judge should not be the subject of public debate and that the release of the video on the Supreme Court website, along with media accusations, violated the constitutional scheme. He emphasized that the inquiry should have focused on determining the ownership of the recovered cash.
The Supreme Court has directed Sibal to submit a one-page bullet-point summary of his arguments and to correct the memo of parties. The court also raised questions about the verification of pleadings in the petition. The hearing was adjourned and is scheduled to resume on Wednesday, July 30, 2025.
The case has its origins in an incident on March 14 when a fire at Justice Varma's residence allegedly led to the discovery of unaccounted cash. Following the incident, a video surfaced showing bundles of cash burning, leading to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma. He has denied these accusations, suggesting a conspiracy to frame him. The inquiry report stated that Justice Varma and his family had control over the storeroom where the cash was found, which was used as evidence of misconduct serious enough to warrant his removal. Justice Varma has claimed that the inquiry reversed the burden of proof, requiring him to disprove the charges, and that the timelines were expedited at the expense of procedural fairness.
The Supreme Court's scrutiny also involves the recommendation by former CJI Khanna for Justice Varma's removal, which Justice Varma argues should be declared unconstitutional. Over 100 Members of Parliament have reportedly signed an impeachment motion against Justice Varma.
