The Supreme Court of India today rejected the writ petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma (Allahabad High Court) challenging the findings of a three‑member in‑house inquiry panel and the subsequent recommendation by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, which had reserved its judgment on July 30, formally dismissed the petition. The court held that Varma had participated in the in‑house process and thus could not later question its legitimacy. The bench further observed that the in‑house procedure enjoys legal backing under the Judges Protection Act, that it is not unconstitutional or an extra‑constitutional mechanism, and that forwarding the report to the President and Prime Minister does not violate fundamental rights.
During proceedings, the bench strongly criticized Varma’s conduct, stating that it “did not inspire confidence” and questioned the delay in seeking judicial review after actively engaging in the inquiry process. The court outlined six key issues—ranging from maintainability to constitutionality—and ruled against each, leaving open the possibility for Varma to pursue remedies only if impeachment proceedings are initiated in Parliament.
Also Read This: India Vows “No Compromise” on Farmers as U.S. Tariffs Surge to 50%
Background: The “Cash‑at‑Home” Controversy and In‑House Enquiry on Justice Yashwant Varma.
The controversy began in March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in New Delhi on the night of March 14–15. Firefighters reportedly discovered large stacks of partially burnt ₹500 notes in a storeroom. The in‑house panel, constituted on March 22, examined 55 witnesses and electronic evidence, concluding that the cash was within Varma’s covert or active control. The panel recommended that he be considered for removal from office due to serious misconduct.
Justice Varma has consistently denied ownership of the cash, claiming the storeroom was not used by him or his family and implying a conspiracy. He was transferred from Delhi High Court back to Allahabad High Court in April 2025, and judicial work was withdrawn pending the investigation. The Special Bench previously reserved judgment on July 30 after expressing skepticism over his conduct and the legitimacy of his late-stage challenge to the inquiry.
Implications and Outlook
- The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the institutional validity of in‑house inquiries and signals that judges cannot disavow the process once they have engaged with it.
- The court emphasized that the Chief Justice is not a “post office”—he has a duty to act when allegations of judicial misconduct arise.
- With the plea dismissed, the path remains open for a parliamentary impeachment motion. Over 200 MPs had signed such a motion by July 2025.
- Varma may still raise his arguments if formal removal proceedings are initiated in Parliament.
In summary, the Supreme Court has not only upheld the procedural integrity of in‑house investigations into judicial misconduct but also firmly ruled that Justice Varma’s challenge was procedurally untenable and legally unfounded.
Follow All India Insights for breaking updates on this evolving Southeast Asia crisis. We’ll keep you posted with verified reports, background context, and diplomatic developments. Others on this like Hindustan Times.