LI Network
Published on: 28 July, 2025 18:55 IST
Supreme Court, today strongly reprimanded Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma for filing a plea challenging the findings of an internal panel’s report on the discovery of a large cache of burnt cash at his official residence. Notably, the plea is filed anonymously as “XXX v. The Union of India” without revealing Justice Varma’s identity.
During the in-house inquiry, the panel found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct related to the incident that occurred while he served as a Delhi High Court judge. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, questioned why Justice Varma participated in the inquiry process and only raised objections after the report was published.
“Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report to come out? Did you expect a favorable outcome first?” the bench asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma. Sibal responded that Justice Varma appeared before the committee believing it would uncover the true ownership of the cash.
The Court also criticized the plea’s format and parties, noting that the petition should have named the Supreme Court as the respondent rather than the registrar general. The bench instructed Sibal to correct the memo and return with summarized points.
Addressing concerns about public debate and media coverage, Sibal argued that as per the constitutional scheme and Article 124, the identity and proceedings involving judges should remain confidential. He further submitted that the in-house inquiry report alone could not serve as the basis for impeachment.
However, the Supreme Court refused to consider submissions not supported by the court record and asked pointed questions about the impeachment procedure, including the roles of the Chief Justice, President, and Prime Minister in such cases.
The hearing was adjourned to July 30 to allow the petitioner to file the corrected documents.
Background: Impeachment Recommendation and Justice Varma’s Plea
Justice Varma had moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash a May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
Varma’s plea contended that the inquiry reversed the burden of proof by requiring him to disprove the allegations. He alleged bias and a rush to conclude proceedings at the expense of procedural fairness, arguing that he was not given a full and fair hearing.
The in-house panel’s report concluded that Justice Varma and his family secretly controlled the premises where the burnt cash was recovered after a fire at his residence on March 14. This was deemed serious misconduct warranting his removal.
A three-judge panel led by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu conducted a 10-day probe, examining 55 witnesses and assessing the circumstances of the fire.
Following the report, CJI Khanna had recommended Justice Varma’s impeachment to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.