Cash-at-home: Supreme Court dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma plea challenging in-house committee probe report
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry report that indicted him over the alleged recovery of a huge amount of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih framed six key questions for determination of the plea, including maintainability, legal procedure, violation of rights, compliance with process, communications to executive, and liberty for future.
Regarding maintainability, it held that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under an in-house mechanism was not maintainable.
The Apex Court noted that the constitution of the in-house committee and the procedure followed by it for inquiry into the incident was not illegal.
The in-house procedure enjoyed legal sanctity and was not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework.
The Bench said it did not find any violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights in the process.
The top court of the country further observed that former CJI Sanjiv Khanna and the in-house committee scrupulously followed the process except uploading photographs and videos, which was not required, since Justice Varma did not raise an objection then. Former CJI Khanna sending letter to the Prime Minister and the President was not unconstitutional, it noted.
While pronouncing the verdict, Justice Datta clarified that the Court had ‘tread carefully’ to ensure that no observations would prejudice the petitioner in any future proceedings.
The Apex Court left open the possibility for Justice Varma to raise grievances through appropriate remedies in the future, if required.
Earlier on July 30, the Bench observed that Justice Varma’s conduct did not inspire confidence since he decided to move the Court belatedly after an in-house committee constituted by the CJI arrived at adverse findings against him.
The top court of the country said it might refrain from interfering in the matter since the Parliament was considering impeachment against Justice Varma for his removal as judge.
The sitting High Court judge contended in his petition that the in-house committee did not conduct a thorough probe into the source of the money allegedly recovered from his residence.
The Bench said it was not the remit of the in-house committee to decide whether the money recovered from Justice Varma’s residence belonged to him or not.
Justice Varma further prayed that the recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as a High Court judge be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires.
He claimed that the in-house probe against him was initiated without any formal complaint. The Supreme Court’s decision to publicly disclose the allegations through a press release subjected him to an unprecedented media trial, he added.
Noting that the points raised by the petitioner were major, the Bench said Justice Varma’s conduct did not inspire confidence. He did not want something to spill here.
On July 28, the Bench expressed its reservation over the procedural casualness and the timing of the petition filed by Justice Varma. At the outset of the hearing, the Court pointed out multiple procedural lapses in the filing of the petition.
It said there were three respondents. The Union of India and the Registrar of the confidential cell were not required. Only the Secretary General of the court was required. The petition mentioned the Secretary General as Registrar General. It should not have been filed so casually.
Acknowledging the oversight, Sibal said corrections would be made.
The Apex Court asked Justice Varma why he participated in the proceedings if he believed the process to be unconstitutional and tainted.
Being a constitutional authority, who knew the process well, the sitting High Court judge could have immediately come to this Court and raised all these points, instead of waiting for the inquiry panel to conclude its findings and the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna forwarding a recommendation for his removal, observed the Bench.
It further asked Justice Varma whether he took a ‘chance’ for a ‘favourable’ outcome by engaging with the in-house panel and only turned to the Apex Court after the findings went against him.
If this report was of no worth, what was Justice Varma challenging, the Apex Court asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the sitting High Court judge.
Noting that the in-house probe was based on an established Supreme Court verdict and that the constitutional process for removal remained under Parliament’s domain, the Bench said of the petitioner had any qualms against the judgment, he could avail other remedies.
It asked Justice Varma why he was aggrieved by former CJI Khanna’s intimation to the President and Prime Minister, especially when the in-house report itself did not trigger any legal consequence unless followed up with a formal parliamentary motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
When Sibal termed the communication to the President and PM as unconstitutional, the top court of the country said that the President was the appointing authority for the judges of constitutional courts. Since the President acted on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister, it was sent to the PM. Sending a communication did not mean the CJI was persuading the Parliament to act against the judge.
On whether the judge’s conduct could be tested under general principles of judicial ethics, the Bench noted that the same could be treated as misbehaviour under the Bangalore Principles.
Adopted in 2002, Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct is a global framework for judicial ethics, which act as a guiding framework to ensure judicial neutrality and ethical conduct. Indian courts have occasionally invoked these principles in disciplinary contexts, particularly when evaluating allegations of judicial misconduct, as seen in cases of public speeches or actions that may compromise the perception of judicial impartiality.
Sibal argued that this did not warrant removal.
The Apex Court said one did not know and directed him to file the in-house inquiry report, as well as correct the memo of parties.
Justice Varma moved the Apex Court against his indictment in July this year. The move followed the recent decision of the Union government to bring an impeachment motion in the Parliament for his removal from office.
The petitioner requested the Apex Court to declare as unconstitutional and ultra vires, the recommendation made by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as a High Court judge.
Assailing the former CJI’s letter to the President and the Prime Minister recommending his removal, the judge claimed this bypassed constitutional procedure and legislative safeguards under Articles 124 and 218.
He further challenged the in-house procedure on inquiry into complaints against judges on the grounds that it created an extra-constitutional and parallel mechanism, derogating from the law that exclusively vested the power for removal of High Court judges in the Parliament.
The In-House procedure did not have the safeguards as provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Since the procedure was administrative in nature and not grounded in statute or the Constitution, it could not be used to recommend removal from constitutional office, noted Justice Varma.
He further contended that the panel initiated probe against him without any formal complaint, based only on presumptions and unverified information. This was contrary to the very design and objective of the in-house procedure, he added.Judge consultation services
The High Court judge claimed that the Supreme Court’s press release, issued on March 22, 2025, publicly disclosed the allegations against him. This led to intense media speculation, harming his reputation and violating his right to dignity.
Justice Varma also raised objection to the leaking and misrepresentation of contents of the confidential final report in the media, further damaging his reputation and undermining the sanctity of the process.
As per the judge, the Committee denied him access to evidence, withheld CCTV footage, and offered no chance to rebut allegations. Key witnesses were examined in his absence, violating natural justice.
He further alleged that the panel ignored core questions like who placed the cash, whether it was genuine, or what caused the fire. These questions were central to establishing guilt or innocence, he noted.
As per Justice Varma, the in-house panel made sweeping conclusions without concrete evidence. It relied on presumptions and failed to discharge the burden of proving serious misconduct.
The petitioner further submitted that within hours of receiving the final report, the CJI asked him to resign or face removal. No personal interaction or opportunity was given to explain his case.
Justice Varma recalled that earlier judges in similar situations were granted personal hearings before any action. The deviation in this case was arbitrary and violated established conventions, he added.
The incident took place on March 14 this year, when Justice Varma was serving as a sitting judge at the Delhi High Court. While extinguishing a fire at his official residence, fire fighters recovered a large sum of unaccounted cash from his outhouse. The judge and his wife were not in Delhi then. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home during the time of the incident.
A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.
The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma. The judge refuted the charges and claimed it to be a conspiracy to frame him. On March 22, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna established a three-member committee to conduct an in-house probe against the sitting High Court judge.
Justice Varma was repatriated to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court, where he was recently administered the oath of office. The judicial work of the judge, however, has been temporarily taken away on instructions of the CJI.
The in-house panel, comprising Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, started the probe on March 25 and concluded the same on May 3.
The committee placed its report before then CJI Khanna on May 4, indicting Justice Varma. The then CJI Khanna forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister, recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.