The Supreme Court on August 7 dismissed the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, in which he challenged the in-house inquiry report and the recommendation by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister seeking his removal.
A division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih delivered the judgment, which had been reserved on July 30. The bench ruled that the petition could not be entertained due to Justice Varma’s participation in the in-house proceedings, followed by his objection to the panel’s competence.
"The writ petition is non-maintainable in view of the conduct of the petitioner," the bench stated.
Read also:- High Court Stays Suspension Order of Gram Panchayat Secretary, Cites Prima Facie Case
Despite this, the Court addressed five significant constitutional questions raised in the case, underlining their importance.
"We have said that the procedure has legal sanction. It is not a parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism," Justice Datta clarified.
Regarding the legality of Paragraph 5B of the in-house procedure, the bench concluded that it does not violate Articles 124, 217, or 218 of the Constitution, nor does it infringe upon a judge's fundamental rights.
"The CJI and the committee followed the procedure strictly, except for uploading the video footage, which was not required and does not impact the case," added Justice Datta.
The Court also upheld the validity of forwarding the report to the President and Prime Minister, saying it was not unconstitutional.
Justice Varma's claim that he was denied a chance to be heard before the report was sent to the top executive offices was rejected. The bench held that the procedure does not mandate such a hearing, and prior instances of it being granted do not create a legal right.
The Court also preserved Justice Varma's right to defend himself if impeachment proceedings are initiated in Parliament.
Separately, a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara -seeking an FIR against Justice Varma for alleged abuse of process and false submissions - was also dismissed.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea: ₹50,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife and Child Upheld
Justice Varma was represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi. His petition was anonymized as 'XXX' in court records. Sibal argued that a judge’s removal must be based solely on proven misbehavior or incapacity under Article 124(4), and that the CJI’s recommendation should not trigger impeachment. Justice Datta responded that the in-house procedure is merely preliminary and not treated as legal evidence.
The controversy originated from a fire at Justice Varma's Delhi residence on March 14, during which a large amount of currency was found. This led the then CJI to form a three-judge in-house committee, which included Justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaraman. Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court and removed from judicial duties during the investigation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim of Kavita Devi vs. Sunil Kumar
The committee examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma and his daughter, and reviewed video and photographic evidence. It concluded that the judge and his family had control over the area where the cash was discovered and failed to offer a credible explanation for its presence.
"Flat denial and unverified conspiracy claims are not sufficient. The burden to explain the cash lies on the judge," the committee stated in its findings.
With the impeachment notice now circulating in Parliament, the matter may proceed further in the legislative arena.
Case: XXX v Union of India & Ors | W.P.(C) No. 699/2025
Appearances: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, and others.