Justice Yashwant Verma.
Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Inquiry, Dismisses Justice Varma’s Challenge: NEW DELHI — In a landmark decision affecting judicial accountability, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma. The petition challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry committee and the subsequent recommendation for his removal, which stemmed from the discovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence. The apex court, in a ruling delivered by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, held that both the constitution of the committee and the procedure it followed were not illegal, reinforcing the legal sanctity of the in-house mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct.
The controversy originated from a fire at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence on the evening of March 14, which allegedly led firefighters to discover large bundles of unaccounted cash. A video of the incident, showing burning currency, later circulated, sparking allegations of corruption against the judge. In response, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house probe, constituting a three-member committee to investigate. The committee, comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu and GS Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman, probed the matter from March 25 to May 3. After the panel’s report indicted Justice Varma, then-CJI Khanna forwarded it to the President and the Prime Minister with a recommendation for his removal.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
Justice Varma, through his petition, had sought to declare the in-house committee’s report and the CJI’s recommendation as unconstitutional and ultra vires. He contended that the inquiry was initiated without a formal complaint and that the public disclosure of the allegations amounted to an “unprecedented” media trial. During the court proceedings, his counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the in-house mechanism was a “parallel and extra-constitutional” procedure that could not, by itself, trigger formal impeachment proceedings, which are governed by Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
Sibal asserted that the committee’s recommendations were not binding and that its process was flawed, highlighting the lack of cross-examination and the denial of a full and fair hearing.
The Supreme Court, however, systematically rejected these arguments. The bench framed and deliberated on six key issues, providing a comprehensive justification for its decision. The court held that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under this specific in-house mechanism was not maintainable. It underscored that the in-house procedure, established in 1999, enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism but an integral part of the constitutional framework for judicial self-regulation.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
The bench found no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights and affirmed that both the CJI and the inquiry committee had “scrupulously followed the process.” While the bench agreed that the public uploading of photos and videos was not required by the procedure, it noted that Justice Varma had not raised an objection at the time, and therefore, nothing turned on it.
A critical point of contention was the CJI’s role. The court rebuffed the argument that sending the report to the President and Prime Minister was unconstitutional. Justice Datta, speaking for the bench, emphasized that the CJI is not a “mere post office” but has duties towards the nation and the integrity of the judiciary. “If the CJI has material to believe that there is misconduct, he can inform that… that is all,” the court stated.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
The bench also questioned the delay in Justice Varma’s legal challenge, suggesting that he should have approached the court sooner if he believed his fundamental rights were being violated.
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted a measure of liberty to Justice Varma, noting that he could still raise his grievances through appropriate remedies in the future if required, particularly during any potential impeachment proceedings that might be initiated by Parliament. The decision marks a significant reaffirmation of the judiciary’s internal mechanism for ensuring accountability and upholding institutional integrity.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
