Cash Discovery Row: Supreme Court questions delay in Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against in-house panel report
Court reserves verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to in-house panel report recommending his removal over alleged misconduct related to burnt cash recovery;
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee and the subsequent recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India for his removal over alleged misconduct linked to the discovery of burnt cash at his official residence.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih posed pointed questions to Justice Varma, observing that his conduct “does not inspire confidence” and asked why he had appeared before the in-house panel without contesting its jurisdiction or procedure at the outset.
“Why didn’t you challenge the committee then and there? Why come now?,” the Bench asked, remarking that a delay in contesting the inquiry undermines the credibility of his claim.
The Court also noted that if the Chief Justice of India is satisfied there is material suggesting judicial misconduct, he can inform the President and the Prime Minister.
“Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But the judiciary has to send a message to society that the process has been followed,” the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Justice Varma contended that the recommendation for impeachment based on the in-house panel’s findings was unconstitutional and would set a “dangerous precedent.” He argued that the inquiry process reversed the burden of proof and was driven by a predetermined narrative, prioritising speed over fairness.
“Justice Varma didn’t come earlier because the damage to his reputation had already been done due to the release of tapes,” Sibal submitted.
During the same hearing, the Apex Court also reserved its order in a separate plea filed by Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who sought the registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police before moving the Supreme Court.
It is to be noted that on July 28, Sibal had argued that a judge’s conduct cannot be subjected to public discussion unless a formal motion for impeachment has been moved in Parliament. Defending Justice Varma's plea challenging the in-house committee’s report recommending his removal, Sibal had contended that the release of tapes, media coverage, and public commentary on the matter violated constitutional safeguards and undermined the dignity of judicial office. Sibal had also criticised the widespread media coverage that followed the release of a video on March 22 allegedly linked to the case, stating, “The judge’s conduct can’t be subject to public debate before the constitutional threshold is crossed. He has already been convicted in public discourse.”
Earlier, on July 24, CJI BR Gavai had recused from hearing Justice Varma's plea. The Supreme Court had earlier declined to order an FIR, asking petitioners to await the committee’s findings. Even after the report was allegedly submitted, reportedly indicting Justice Varma, no FIR was registered, prompting the current petition.
The previous petitioners were also advised to approach the President and Prime Minister. While representations were made, the plea states there has been no response or directive to investigate, despite the gravity of the incident.
In May, the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India had refused to provide information in an RTI application seeking copy of the inhouse inquiry report against Justice Yashwant Varma. The RTI also sought copy of the letter sent by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the Prime Minister and President of India.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India along with Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India
Hearing date: July 30, 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih