The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the in-house inquiry and subsequent impeachment recommendation against him. The case stems from the discovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Varma's Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14, 2025.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih delivered the verdict, upholding the legality and constitutional validity of the in-house inquiry conducted in the matter. The court stated that the inquiry process was constitutional and legally sound, and that Justice Varma's fundamental rights were not violated. The bench also dismissed Justice Varma's challenge to the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister for his removal. Notices for Justice Varma's removal were submitted in both Houses of Parliament last month.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism. It further stated that not granting Justice Varma a hearing by the then CJI before recommending his removal did not violate any procedure, as such a hearing cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court observed that Justice Varma's conduct during the proceedings did not inspire confidence. The bench noted that Justice Varma should have raised objections during the inquiry instead of waiting for its completion.

However, the Supreme Court did express that the then CJI and the inquiry committee could have avoided uploading videos related to the discovery of cash at Justice Varma's residence. The court clarified that this issue did not impact the outcome of the case, as Justice Varma did not question it at the opportune moment.

The in-house committee, constituted by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, was headed by Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and comprised Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The committee submitted its report on May 3, 2025, indicting Justice Varma after analyzing the statements of 55 witnesses, including his own, and conducting the probe for 10 days.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, had argued that the then CJI Khanna's recommendation for removal proceedings would set a dangerous precedent. However, the court held that the CJI, as the leader of the judiciary, has a duty to keep the justice delivery system pure, clean, and unpolluted. The Supreme Court also dismissed a related plea filed by an advocate seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, stating that he had placed incorrect facts before the court.

The Supreme Court bench framed six legal and constitutional questions in its judgment and answered all of them against Justice Varma, noting that his conduct "did not inspire confidence". The court clarified that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges.