From Fire to Impeachment: A Definitive Chronology of the Justice Yashwant Varma Controversy

As of July 18, 2025, the Indian judiciary stands at a precipice, embroiled in an unprecedented institutional crisis. The saga of Allahabad High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma has escalated from a mysterious fire into a multi-front battle, pitting a sitting judge against the Supreme Court’s internal disciplinary authority and setting the stage for a rare impeachment motion in Parliament. The controversy encapsulates a fundamental tension between judicial accountability and judicial independence, forcing a national reckoning with the adequacy of the mechanisms designed to uphold integrity within the higher judiciary, a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy. This report provides an exhaustive, fact-based chronology of the events, from the initial discovery of burnt currency to the latest legal and political maneuvers, offering a definitive account of a crisis that will shape the future of judicial governance in India.

Table 1: A Timeline of the Unravelling Crisis

Part I: The Spark – A Midnight Fire and a Shocking Discovery (March 14-15, 2025)

The chain of events that would shake the Indian judiciary began around 11:35 p.m. on March 14, 2025. A fire erupted in an outhouse storeroom at 30, Tughlaq Crescent, the official government bungalow of Justice Yashwant Varma, then a senior judge of the Delhi High Court. At the time of the incident, Justice Varma and his wife were away in Madhya Pradesh, while his daughter and elderly mother were at the residence.

Responding to emergency calls from the judge’s daughter and private secretary, personnel from the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police arrived to douse the flames. In the process, they made a startling discovery: a large quantity of charred and semi-burnt currency notes, primarily of ₹500 denomination, stuffed in several sacks inside the storeroom. Some of the first responders captured photographs and videos of the scene on their mobile phones, creating a cache of electronic evidence that would later prove pivotal.

The matter was immediately recognized as highly sensitive. Within hours, Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora briefed Union Home Minister Amit Shah. On the afternoon of March 15, Arora informed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, D.K. Upadhyay, and shared the photographic and video evidence with him via WhatsApp. Chief Justice Upadhyay promptly relayed the information to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna. From the moment he was informed, Justice Varma consistently and vehemently denied any knowledge of the cash, maintaining that neither he nor his family had placed any money in what he described as a commonly used storeroom. He immediately characterized the episode as a “conspiracy to frame and malign him”.

The actions—and inactions—of the first 24 hours were critical in shaping the entire controversy. The decision to inform the Union Home Minister before a formal report was made to the head of the Delhi judiciary suggested the incident was immediately viewed through a political and security lens, not just a judicial one. Furthermore, the failure of the first responders to conduct a formal seizure of the cash or prepare a seizure memo, known as a panchnama, created a procedural gap. This lapse in standard investigative protocol provided Justice Varma with a foundational argument to later challenge the integrity of the evidence and the legitimacy of the entire inquiry against him.

Part II: The Institutional Response – Containment and Inquiry (March 16-31, 2025)

The judiciary’s leadership responded with remarkable speed. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Khanna, recommended in meetings on March 20 and 24 that Justice Varma be repatriated to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. The official rationale was purely administrative and pragmatic: as a senior judge in Delhi, Justice Varma was a member of the High Court’s collegium and key committees. With an inquiry pending and his judicial work suspended, his continued presence would have created an “operational deadlock,” stalling crucial appointments and administrative decisions. The Supreme Court later issued a clarification stating the transfer was “independent and separate” from the inquiry. The Union government formally notified the transfer on March 28.

Concurrently, on March 22, CJI Khanna initiated a formal judicial probe by constituting a three-member in-house inquiry committee. The high-level panel comprised Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana HC), Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh HC), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka HC). The CJI also directed that all judicial work be withdrawn from Justice Varma, a directive that would apply in both Delhi and, subsequently, Allahabad.

In a move that stunned legal observers, the Supreme Court issued a press release on March 22, publishing the allegations, the order constituting the committee, and redacted versions of preliminary reports on its official website. While some saw this as a necessary nod to transparency, invoking the principle that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, Justice Varma would later argue that this unprecedented disclosure subjected him to an unfair “media trial” and irreparably damaged his reputation before any investigation had concluded.

The judiciary’s actions were met with a furious backlash from a key stakeholder: the Allahabad High Court Bar Association. Viewing the transfer not as an administrative necessity but as a punitive act, the association launched an indefinite strike on March 25. In strongly worded resolutions, they declared that the Allahabad High Court would not be treated as a “trash bin” for a judge facing serious charges of corruption. The lawyers demanded Justice Varma’s immediate impeachment, an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED), and a comprehensive review of all his past judgments. Their protest underscored a deep chasm between the judiciary’s official, procedurally correct narrative and the perception on the ground, revealing a crisis of confidence in the system’s ability to police itself.

Part III: The Probe – Evidence, Testimony, and a Damning Verdict (April – May 2025)

The three-judge inquiry committee conducted its probe over 10 days, a period during which it examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma, his daughter, his personal staff, and the fire and police personnel who first arrived at the scene. The panel meticulously analyzed the electronic evidence, including the photographs and videos taken by the first responders.

On May 3, the committee submitted its 64-page report to the CJI, and its conclusions were devastating for Justice Varma. The key findings included:

• Presence of Cash Confirmed: The report unequivocally stated that “cash/money was found in the store room” and that this was established by “direct as well as electronic evidence of unimpeachable character” from at least 10 eyewitnesses.
• Control Over the Storeroom: The committee systematically dismantled Justice Varma’s defense that the storeroom was a “porous space” or a “general dumping area”. Citing testimony from security guards that the room was locked and padlocked, the panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family exercised “covert or active control” over it.
• “Unnatural Conduct” and “Adverse Inference”: The report highlighted Justice Varma’s failure to inspect the fire site upon his return to Delhi or to file a police complaint about the conspiracy he alleged. This behavior was deemed “unnatural conduct,” leading the committee to draw an “adverse inference” against him, which significantly weakened his claims of innocence.
• Shifting the Burden of Proof: In a crucial legal determination, the report asserted that once the presence of burnt cash in his storeroom was established, “the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation.” The committee found that he “failed to do so, except projecting a flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy”.
• The Final Verdict: The committee concluded that while there was no direct evidence linking the judge to the money, there was “strong inferential evidence” of his culpability. It held that his conduct “belied the trust” reposed in a constitutional court judge and amounted to “serious judicial misconduct warranting impeachment”. Critically, the panel stated that whether the cash was stashed with his “tacit or explicit knowledge” was “of little significance” in the face of the larger breach of public trust associated with his high office.

The committee’s report is as notable for what it does not say as for what it does. It never definitively answers the central question: “Whose money was it?”. Instead of solving this mystery, the panel executed a strategic legal pivot. It shifted the entire basis of the inquiry from proving the origin of the illicit cash to the judge’s failure to explain its presence on property under his control. By establishing his control and then deeming his explanation—the conspiracy theory—as not credible, the committee found him liable for misconduct based on a breach of judicial ethics and a failure to discharge his burden of proof. He was indicted not for an act of proven corruption, but for an omission: the failure to uphold the high standard of conduct expected of a judge when faced with deeply suspicious circumstances. This approach, while sufficient for the committee to recommend removal, left the core mystery unresolved and fueled widespread speculation.

Part IV: The Standoff – An Ultimatum Refused, A Recommendation Made (May 2025)

Following the committee’s damning report, CJI Khanna followed an established, albeit informal, practice. He advised Justice Varma to either resign or take voluntary retirement. This path is often offered to judges facing serious allegations as a way to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and avoid the public spectacle of impeachment.

However, in a move that marked a stark departure from precedents like the cases of Justice Soumitra Sen and Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who resigned before removal proceedings could conclude, Justice Varma refused to step down. In a detailed letter dated May 6, he forcefully rejected the CJI’s advice, arguing that to do so would be to accept a “fundamentally unjust” process. He alleged “serious violations of principles of natural justice” in the inquiry and urged the CJI to reconsider the findings.

This resolute refusal left the CJI with no other recourse under the in-house procedure. On May 8, CJI Khanna took the final, momentous step of forwarding the inquiry report to the President of India and the Prime Minister, accompanied by a formal recommendation to initiate the constitutional process for Justice Varma’s removal from office. This act officially transitioned the matter from an internal disciplinary proceeding within the judiciary to the political and constitutional arena of Parliament. The Supreme Court confirmed this development in a press statement the same day.

Part V: The Counter-Offensive – A Judge Sues the System (July 2025)

On July 17, 2025, just four days before the Monsoon Session of Parliament was set to begin, Justice Varma launched an unprecedented counter-offensive. He filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, taking the extraordinary step of a sitting judge challenging the legality and constitutionality of the judiciary’s own internal disciplinary mechanism.

His petition sought to have the entire inquiry report and the subsequent impeachment recommendation quashed. It was built on a multi-pronged legal assault on the process:

1. Extra-Constitutional Procedure: He argued that the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure, a mechanism adopted by resolution in 1999, is “extra-constitutional” and illegally “usurps” the exclusive power of Parliament to remove judges, which is governed by Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and the supporting Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. No Power of Superintendence: The plea contended that the Constitution does not grant the CJI or the Supreme Court any disciplinary or supervisory authority over High Court judges, whose tenure is constitutionally protected.
3. Violation of Natural Justice: He alleged that the entire probe was procedurally defective, having been initiated without a formal complaint. He claimed he was denied a fair hearing, not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, provided only with “paraphrased statements” of witnesses instead of video recordings, and denied access to potentially exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage.
4. Reversal of Burden of Proof: He directly attacked the inquiry committee’s central legal conclusion, arguing that it had erroneously and unfairly shifted the burden of proof onto him, requiring him to “disprove a fact that the committee presumed fantasy to be true”.
5. Media Trial: He contended that the Supreme Court’s own press release of March 22 had subjected him to a premature media trial, causing “irreparable damage” to his personal and professional reputation and violating his right to dignity.
6. Insufficient Time: He claimed he was given an “unduly restricted timeline” to review the committee’s voluminous report before being advised to resign.

With this petition, Justice Varma’s case evolved from a personal defense into a systemic challenge against the judiciary’s two-decade-old framework for self-regulation. By questioning the very constitutional validity of the in-house procedure, he has forced the Supreme Court into the profound and paradoxical position of having to adjudicate on its own internal power. The case is no longer merely about the facts of a fire in a storeroom; it is now a referendum on the legitimacy of the process used to investigate those facts. This elevates the stakes exponentially, as the outcome could potentially dismantle or force a radical overhaul of the entire system of judicial accountability that has been in place since the late 1990s.

Part VI: The Final Arena – Parliament Prepares for Impeachment (July 2025)

With the CJI’s recommendation formally delivered, the focus shifted to the political arena. The Union government began laying the groundwork for a removal motion against Justice Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament, scheduled to commence on July 21. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju initiated talks with leaders of all political parties, seeking to build a non-partisan consensus and emphasizing that the removal of a judge for misconduct should transcend politics.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal adopted a politically cautious stance, carefully framing the government’s role. He stated that bringing a motion is “entirely a matter for the MPs” and that the “government is not in the picture,” positioning the executive as a facilitator of a constitutional process driven by Parliament.

This approach found traction across the aisle. The Congress party announced its support, with senior leader Jairam Ramesh confirming that its MPs would sign the motion. He argued that the former CJI had “forced our hand” by sending the report directly to the President and Prime Minister, leaving Parliament with little choice but to act. This emerging bipartisan support makes the admission of a removal motion in the Lok Sabha highly probable.

However, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal injected a note of political intrigue, alleging that the government was selectively targeting Justice Varma as part of a larger agenda to “dismantle” the Collegium system and assert control over judicial appointments. He contrasted the swift action against Varma with the perceived inaction on an opposition-led impeachment notice against another judge, Justice Shekhar Yadav, which had been pending for months. This accusation links the Varma case to the long-simmering tensions between the judiciary and the executive over the power of judicial appointments.

Table 2: The Constitutional Process for Removing a High Court Judge

Conclusion: An Uncharted Constitutional Territory

As of July 18, 2025, the Justice Yashwant Varma case has propelled India into uncharted constitutional waters. It has transcended the alleged misconduct of one judge to become a crucible for the entire judicial system. The unprecedented spectacle of parallel proceedings—a sitting judge’s legal challenge to the system’s foundations in the Supreme Court, running concurrently with a political process for his removal in Parliament—has created a constitutional paradox with no historical parallel.

The case forces a direct confrontation with critical questions that have long simmered beneath the surface of Indian jurisprudence: Is the judiciary’s self-regulatory in-house procedure a necessary shield for its independence, or is it an opaque, unaccountable system that violates the principles of natural justice? Where is the line between administrative action and punitive sanction? And can the cumbersome, politically fraught impeachment process serve as a viable instrument of accountability in the 21st century?

Unlike in past controversies where judges facing similar inquiries chose to resign, Justice Varma’s decision to fight back has ensured these fundamental questions cannot be sidestepped. The outcome of his petition before the Supreme Court and the subsequent proceedings in Parliament will not only determine his personal fate. They will inevitably set a profound and lasting precedent, fundamentally reshaping the delicate and often fraught balance between judicial independence, accountability, and public trust in the Indian republic for generations to come. The fire that broke out on a March night has ignited a much larger conflagration, and its embers continue to smoulder at the very heart of India’s constitutional order.