The Supreme Court on Tuesday informed that it will constitute a special bench to hear the plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that indicted him in connection with a major cash recovery incident at his official residence.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal, and advocates George Pothan Poothicote and Manisha Singh, appeared on behalf of Justice Varma.
“We have filed the petition on behalf of the Allahabad High Court judge. Some serious constitutional issues are involved. I request the court to constitute a bench at the earliest,” the counsels submitted.
Read also: “A Cow is a Cow” – Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Use of Only Indigenous Cow Milk at Tirumala Temple
In response, the Chief Justice stated:
"We will just take a call and constitute a bench,"
"It may not be proper for me to take up this matter," he clarified.
Justice Varma, who was earlier serving in the Delhi High Court and later repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, has also challenged the recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, urging them to initiate impeachment proceedings based on the inquiry report.
In his petition, Justice Varma has strongly criticised the inquiry process. He contends that the in-house committee acted in a biased manner, without following fair procedure or giving him an adequate chance to present his side.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Isha Foundation and Nakkheeran to Approach Delhi High Court
“The Committee failed to notify the Petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only ‘incriminating’ material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage (despite Petitioner's requests), denied opportunities of personal hearing, did not put any specific/tentative case to the Petitioner, impermissibly reversed the burden of proof without notice to the Petitioner, and effectively hindered any effective defence by the Petitioner,” the plea stated.
The controversy began on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. During the fire-fighting operation, fire personnel discovered a large quantity of cash in an outhouse. The incident triggered significant public outrage.
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against Political Parties Using Tricolour-Themed Flags With Symbols
Following this, an in-house inquiry committee was formed by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, consisting of:
- Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court)
- Justice GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court)
- Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court)
While the inquiry was ongoing, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial work was withdrawn.
The committee, after examining 55 witnesses including Justice Varma and his daughter, and reviewing videos, photographs, and other electronic evidence from the fire department, concluded that the cash was indeed found in his official premises.
The committee remarked that Justice Varma's behaviour post-incident was “unnatural,” warranting adverse inferences.
Further, it observed:
“The storeroom where the cash was found was within the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members.”
“The burden was on him to explain the presence of such large sums of cash.”
Since Justice Varma failed to offer any plausible explanation beyond a “flat denial” or a vague claim of conspiracy, the committee found enough grounds to recommend action.
Despite being advised to resign by the CJI, Justice Varma declined. Subsequently, the report was sent to the President and the Prime Minister.
The petition challenging this entire process has been filed by Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Niti.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
Diary No.: 38664/2025