Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the in-house committee’s findings and the removal recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. This comes after a large amount of unaccounted cash was reportedly found at his official residence in Delhi following a fire in March.
Justice Varma’s plea questions the constitutional validity of the in-house procedure, asserting it creates an extra-constitutional mechanism that undermines the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. He contends that only Parliament is vested with the authority to remove a sitting judge, and the committee’s process lacks legal standing and procedural safeguards.
The case took a dramatic turn after a blaze broke out at Varma’s residence on March 14, while he and his wife were away in Madhya Pradesh. Firefighters allegedly recovered bundles of unaccounted cash from the scene. A video also surfaced showing the cash burning in the fire. Justice Varma has denied all allegations, claiming he is being framed in a deliberate conspiracy.
A three-member panel comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court), GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court) was formed by CJI Khanna on March 22. The panel submitted its report on May 4, following which the CJI recommended Justice Varma’s impeachment to the President.
Justice Varma was then transferred back to the Allahabad High Court and took oath, but his judicial responsibilities were withdrawn by the CJI. In his petition, he alleges that he was not given an opportunity to present his defense, and that he was pressured to resign or retire, failing which the removal proceedings would be initiated.
He further criticizes the Supreme Court’s public disclosure of the allegations via press release, calling it a violation of due process and an invitation for a media trial. Justice Varma’s plea also highlights the absence of clarity on the cash’s ownership and exact value, which he claims was ignored in the committee’s final report.
Filed through advocate Vaibhav Niti, the petition could spark a landmark constitutional debate over judicial accountability, the scope of in-house inquiries, and the boundaries of CJI authority.
