“Why did you appear before the inquiry panel, if you now dispute the legality of the procedure it followed?”: SC quizzes Justice Yashwant Varma

THE SUPREME COURT TODAY questioned Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, for challenging the report of a three-judge in-house committee that indicted him following the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash by Delhi Fire Service personnel on March 14, 2025, from a storeroom located outside his official residence during a fire-fighting operation.A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta and also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih asked, “Why did you appear before the (three-judge) inquiry committee? You should have raised all these points before the Court instead.”The bench’s remarks came as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, contended that the ‘in-house inquiry’ mechanism adopted in 1999 was not to be taken recourse to or be a parallel to the procedure provided under the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, for initiating the process of a judge’s removal for “misbehaviour or incapacity.”Sibal argued that the process—starting with the formation of the in-house committee, followed by its May 3 report, and the May 8 recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal sent by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna—was unconstitutional. He pointed out that Articles 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, exclusively govern the removal of a judge and require a formal process initiated in Parliament..Sibal argued that the process—starting with the formation of the in-house committee, followed by its May 3 report, and the May 8 recommendation for Justice Varma’s removal sent by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna—was unconstitutional..Quoting Article 124(5), Sibal said: “Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.”He argued that even Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct unless a formal inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act is completed and misbehaviour is established. “If Parliament itself cannot discuss a judge’s conduct without due process, how can such findings be made public through press releases or sent to the President and Prime Minister?” Sibal asked.Responding to the May 8 communication from former CJI Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal, Sibal argued that removal proceedings are political in nature and can only be initiated by Members of Parliament, not even by the executive. This letter cannot be treated as a removal trigger, he submitted.The bench then pointedly asked, “Who is the appointing authority?” implying that since the President appoints judges, the CJI's letter may be seen as a communication to the appointing authority, not necessarily triggering impeachment. The Court stated “You cannot dispute the incident of fire and the recovery of cash”. “But the cash does not belong to me,” Sibal replied, “My staff wasn’t present. They were not informed about the recovery either.”.Justice Varma’s writ is an occasion for the judiciary to hold mirror to what it has become.The bench also questioned why Justice Verma did not raise any objection to the inquiry process at the time. “You are a constitutional authority. Why didn’t you object when the committee was formed? Judges have in the past declined to participate in similar in-house inquiries,” said Justice Datta.The bench further said that it is something to say that procedure was transgressed and another thing to say that procedure was followed or not. The recommendation is for the initiation of proceedings for removal.Sibal replied that it cannot be the basis of the impeachment.The hearing also saw the Court pointing out that certain documents referred to by Sibal were not attached to the petition. Accordingly, it adjourned the matter to Wednesday, July 30, directing that all relevant documents be placed on record and asking for a one-page note listing Justice Varma’s key legal arguments.A summary of the questions posed:To summarise, the Bench posed following questions to Justice Yashwant Varma:1. Why did he submit to the jurisdiction of the in-house committee if he believed it was contrary to the Constitution?2. Why did he not challenge the in-house inquiry committee when it was formed?3. How is Justice Varma aggrieved at this stage? Given that the inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act has broader powers to examine the issue and take evidence under oath, is not the in-house report merely a fact-finding document and not evidence?4. Supreme Court judgments have upheld the sanctity of the in-house procedure. How is it flawed?5. What happens if Parliament takes no action when a citizen files a complaint against a judge, alleging a violation of the Bangalore Principles?6. What is problematic about the CJI sending the in-house committee report to the President and Prime Minister?.“What is problematic about the CJI sending the in-house committee report to the President and Prime Minister?”.BackgroundJustice Varma’s petition before the top court seeks to quash both the May 3 committee report and the May 8 recommendation for his removal. He maintains that no formal complaint preceded the probe and that the in-house committee violated principles of natural justice—by failing to inform him of its procedure, denying access to evidence including CCTV footage, and drawing adverse inferences without establishing the source or amount of cash recovered.The case traces back to a fire incident at Justice Varma’s then-official residence in Lutyens’ Delhi on March 14. While extinguishing the fire, Delhi Fire Service personnel reportedly discovered semi-burnt bundles of cash in a storeroom. The incident was widely reported, and a video of burning cash went viral, triggering allegations of corruption and prompting a press release from the Supreme Court.On March 22, then CJI Khanna constituted a three-member in-house panel comprising Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia, and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman. The committee submitted its report on May 3. Later, Chief Justice Khanna recommended Justice Varma’s removal, leading to the present challenge before the top Court.

“Why did you appear before the inquiry panel, if you now dispute the legality of the procedure it followed?”: SC quizzes Justice Yashwant Varma

Related Stories