New Delhi, August 7, 2025 – The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the recommendation for his removal from office over the alleged recovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih ruled that the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and the inquiry conducted by an in-house committee into the incident were legally valid and followed due process. The Court held that Justice Varma’s plea lacked merit and upheld the sanctity of the in-house mechanism adopted by the judiciary for such sensitive matters.
Six Key Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court
The Bench framed and addressed six critical issues in the matter:
- Maintainability – The Court held that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge investigated under an in-house mechanism was not maintainable.
- Legal Procedure – It confirmed that the in-house inquiry process is valid and does not exist outside the constitutional framework.
- Violation of Rights – The Court found no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights, including principles of natural justice.
- Compliance with Procedure – The Court observed that the CJI and the in-house committee had scrupulously followed due process, noting that the lack of public disclosure of photos and videos was not material to the proceedings.
- Communication to Executive – The act of sending the report to the Prime Minister and President was deemed not unconstitutional.
- Liberty to Seek Remedies – The Court left open the possibility for Justice Varma to pursue other legal remedies in the future if necessary.
“We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future. With this, we have dismissed the writ petition,” the Bench declared.
Background: Fire, Cash and Controversy
The controversy began on the evening of March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s government residence in Delhi. Firefighters responding to the incident reportedly discovered large bundles of unaccounted cash, some of which were visibly burning in a viral video that surfaced shortly after.
The discovery raised serious concerns, prompting former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to initiate an in-house investigation on March 22. A three-member inquiry panel was constituted, comprising:
- Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court)
- Justice GS Sandhawalia (Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court)
- Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court)
The panel began its inquiry on March 25 and submitted its report on May 3, which was forwarded to the President of India by the CJI on May 4, recommending the judge’s removal from office.
Justice Varma’s Arguments and Claims
Justice Varma, in his plea to the Supreme Court, alleged that the in-house proceedings:
- Were initiated without a formal complaint.
- Violated principles of natural justice.
- Denied him a proper opportunity to respond to evidence.
- Subjected him to a media trial, especially after the Court’s press release.
- Failed to identify the origin and ownership of the cash allegedly recovered from his residence.
He also claimed that CJI Khanna pressured him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an “unduly restricted timeline.”
Return to Allahabad High Court But No Judicial Work
Following the investigation, Justice Varma was sent back to the Allahabad High Court, where he recently took oath again. However, based on the directions of the Chief Justice of India, no judicial work has been assigned to him since his return.
Impact and Significance
This ruling is significant in affirming the legitimacy of the in-house mechanism for judicial accountability in India. It also reinforces the independence of the judiciary and the process by which allegations against judges are handled internally without external interference unless there is a clear constitutional violation.
The case has triggered broader conversations about transparency, accountability, and internal discipline within the higher judiciary. Legal experts believe that while the in-house procedure lacks statutory backing, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of its constitutional validity sets a strong precedent.
As of now, with the petition dismissed and judicial work withheld, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge without a courtroom—awaiting the next chapter in what could become a landmark case on judicial accountability in India.
