New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed by Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. The petition challenged the legality of an in-house inquiry committee report that found him guilty of misconduct and the subsequent recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, to initiate his removal.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih held that the writ petition was not maintainable, primarily due to Justice Varma’s conduct in participating in the inquiry before challenging its competence. The Court, however, also addressed the substantive questions raised, affirming the validity of the in-house procedure for inquiring into allegations against judges.
Background of the Case
The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when a fire at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a judge of the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of a large quantity of cash. Following a significant public and media outcry, then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member in-house committee to investigate the matter. The committee comprised Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge of the Karnataka High Court).
Pending the inquiry, Justice Varma was transferred to his parent High Court of Allahabad, and judicial work was withdrawn from him.
The in-house committee, after examining 55 witnesses and electronic evidence, submitted its report in May 2025. It concluded that the cash was found within premises under the “covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members” and that he failed to provide a plausible explanation for its presence. Based on this report, CJI Khanna advised Justice Varma to resign. Upon his refusal, the CJI forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister of India, recommending the initiation of removal proceedings.
Justice Varma challenged this process before the Supreme Court, filing a writ petition (anonymised as ‘XXX’) against the Union of India.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the in-house procedure is an extra-constitutional mechanism. He contended that a judge can only be removed on grounds of “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” through a process initiated and conducted by Parliament under Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Mr. Sibal argued that the CJI’s recommendation, based on the in-house report, could not act as a trigger for impeachment, as it would unconstitutionally influence the parliamentary process.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The bench of Justice Datta and Justice Masih, which had reserved its judgment on July 30, delivered the verdict today. Pronouncing the judgment, the bench was critical of the petitioner’s conduct. It observed that Justice Varma had submitted to the authority of the in-house committee and only challenged its competence after receiving an unfavorable report. “Once you submit to an authority, and once the result is not palatable to you, you can’t challenge that authority later,” the Court had remarked during the hearings.
The Court held that the constitution of the in-house committee by the CJI was in accordance with established procedure. It also found no merit in the objection to the uploading of photos and videos of the fire operation on the Supreme Court’s website, noting that this action was not challenged by Justice Varma at the appropriate time.
Dismissing the challenge to the CJI’s authority, the bench observed that the Chief Justice of India is not merely a “post office.” It held that the CJI has a duty to the nation and possesses the authority to recommend the removal of a judge to the President and Prime Minister based on the findings of a preliminary inquiry. “We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional,” the Court stated.
The bench clarified that its ruling does not preclude Justice Varma from raising his arguments at a future stage if formal removal proceedings are initiated in Parliament. “We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future,” the Court noted.
With these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, bringing the current legal challenge to a close.
