SC reserves verdict on Justice Varma's plea against panel findings

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of an in-house inquiry committee that has found him guilty of misconduct after recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence in Delhi in March this year. 

 

The apex court has wondered why the former Delhi High Court judge was questioning the panel and its formation after taking part in its hearings throughout the course of the probe.

 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih heard the matter.

 

“Your conduct does not inspire confidence. We did not want to say this, but your conduct says a lot. You could have come. There are judgments which say that once you submit to the authority, there is a possibility that you may have a favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. A person who is invoking Article 32 jurisdiction, conduct is also relevant,” Justice Datta said.

 

Article 32 of the Constitution allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

 

The bench also heard a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of FIR against Justice Varma.

 

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, said that the Judges (Inquiry) Act occupies the entire field relating to the removal of a judge and hence an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge’s removal.

 

“If an in-house procedure can trigger the process of removal of judges, then it is violative of Article 124,” he argued.

 

Article 124 of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court of India.

 

Justice Datta then pointed out that the in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court.

 

Justice Varma also challenged the May 8 recommendation by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, urging Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. His plea alleges that the panel’s findings were based on a “preconceived narrative” and that the adverse findings were drawn without affording him a full and fair hearing.

 

“Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to the society that the process has been followed,” the bench said.

 

The bench pointed out that the chief justice of India’s post is not supposed to be a post office only.

 

“He (the CJI) has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If materials come before him (regarding misconduct), CJI has the duty to forward to the President and the Prime Minister. If on the basis of the material it is found that the misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming the earlier decisions of this court saying CJI has the authority to do so,” Justice Datta said.

 

He said that “in-house procedure” was the law laid down by the Supreme Court as per Article 141.

 

But the bench agreed with Sibal’s argument that the videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure.

 

The in-house inquiry committee had examined 55 witnesses and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11.35PM on March 14, 2025 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then serving in the Delhi High Court and now a judge of the Allahabad high court.

 

Based on the panel’s findings, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment.