Supreme Court to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's plea against recommendation for his removal

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine a plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, indicted by an in-house inquiry report over discovery of cash bundles at his house, questioning the validity of actions initiated against him, including the recommendation for his removal.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Varma mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai for urgent hearing.

The CJI said since he was part of the decision to transfer varma, it would not be proper for him to hear it.

He said he would constitute a bench for hearing the matter.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, ⁠Rakesh Dwivedi, ⁠Sidharth Luthra and ⁠Siddharth Aggarwal also appeared for Justice Varma. The counsel submitted that some constitutional issues were involved in the matter.

The CJI agreed to consider the plea and set up a bench.

In a writ petition, Justice Varma, who was transferred from the Delhi High Court to his parent, Allahabad High Court after the alleged discovery of cash at his residence in March this year, questioned the validity of the in-house procedure, marked by what he claimed as denial of fair hearing and due process.

He also raised the issue of absence of formal complaint before the inquiry was initiated by the judges panel. Justice Varma contended the Supreme Court's act of uploading a press release on March 22, 2025, disclosing allegations against him led to intense media speculation adversely affecting his reputation and violating the right to dignity.

Justice Varma also contended the judges committee, formed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, denied him an opportunity to rebut the allegations or to cross examine witnesses.

He contended the recommendation to remove him was made without any personal opportunity to explain his case. He also claimed that the committee failed to investigate the basic facts, especially those related to the alleged discovery of cash on March 14.

The development came amid the move to introduce the impeachment motion against Justice Varma during the Monsoon sessions of Parliament. A separate plea has been filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara for lodging an FIR against Varma.

In his plea, Varma sought a declaration that the recommendation by the then CJI on May 08, 2025 to the President and the Prime Minister for initiation of his removal as a High Court Judge is unconstitutional and ultra vires.

His plea contended, primarily, the in-house procedure, adopted via a 1999 full court resolution to handle complaints against judges and preserve judicial independence while maintaining public faith, unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding.

"By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which exclusively vest powers for removal of Judges of the High Courts in Parliament through an address supported by a special majority, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968," the plea said.

He stated this Act, enacted per Article 124(5), provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for "proved misbehaviour".

His plea also contended the proceedings before the committee violated natural justice, reasonableness and fairness under Article 14.

"The committee failed to notify the petitioner of its devised procedure, denied him any opportunity to provide inputs on the evidence to be collected, examined witnesses in his absence and provided him with paraphrased statements instead of video recordings (despite availability), selectively disclosed only "incriminating" material, ignored and failed to collect relevant and exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage," it said.

The plea also claimed the committee’s mandate of being a "fact-finding" inquiry was unjustifiably truncated, being limited only to non-contentious issues—i.e. whether cash was present in the outhouse, and whether the outhouse was part of the official premises. "Both these facts were non-contentious because the petitioner did not dispute the presence of cash, and the location of the outhouse was evident at sight," it added.

The cash haul was allegedly found at the residence of Justice Varma, then Delhi HC judge here during the fire incident on March 14-15, 2025.

The judge was subsequently transferred to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.

On March 22, 2025, the then CJI set up the committee headed by Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ms Justice Anu Sivaraman, judge of the High Court of Karnataka.

The committee finalised its report on May 3, 2025 indicting him, upon analysing the statements of 55 witnesses including of Justice Varma, and conducting the probe for 10 days. Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action as Justice Varma reportedly refused to step down.