“Essential to ascertain who cash belongs to”: Justice Yashwant Varma challenges removal in Supreme Court

The petition filed through AoR Vaibhav Niti which raises serious constitutional questions about the limits of the judiciary’s internal disciplinary mechanism, seeks to quash the May 3, 2025 Final Report of a three-member in-house inquiry committee that found allegations against the judge “proved,” and the subsequent recommendation by the CJI to the President and Prime Minister on May 8, 2025 to initiate removal proceedings.

The judge, who has served for over 11 years and was transferred to the Delhi High Court in 2021 before being repatriated to Allahabad in April 2025, contends that the in-house procedure has been misused to create an extra-constitutional route for judicial removal that circumvents Article 124 and Article 218 of the Constitution.

The Allegations and Inquiry

The matter arises out of a March 14–15, 2025 fire incident at the judge’s official residence in Tughlaq Crescent, New Delhi. Officials of the Delhi Fire Services and Delhi Police allegedly discovered burnt currency in an outhouse on the premises. No formal seizure or inventory was made, but some videos and photos were reportedly taken informally.

At the time, the judge was on vacation in Madhya Pradesh. Despite no formal complaint being lodged, the then CJI initiated proceedings under the 1999 In-House Procedure and constituted a three-member committee to inquire into two allegations: that the currency belonged to the judge, and that he was aware of its removal the next morning.

The Committee’s report concluded that misconduct was “proved” and grave enough to warrant initiation of the judge’s removal.

Constitutional Challenge

In his petition, Justice Varma has argued that the In-House Procedure lacks constitutional or statutory backing for recommending removal, and that it cannot override the process set out in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which governs impeachment proceedings under Article 124(5).

He asserts that the process followed was in breach of natural justice and due process; no formal hearing was granted, evidence was selectively disclosed, and critical questions about the origin and quantity of the cash, the cause of fire, and the alleged removal were left unanswered.

The petition also highlights concerns over procedural irregularities: no formal complaint existed, the judge was denied a chance to review evidence or respond meaningfully, and unprecedented media disclosures by the Supreme Court and leaks of the report caused lasting reputational damage.

Relief Sought

Justice Varma has asked the Apex Court to declare the May 8 communication to the President and Prime Minister recommending his removal as unconstitutional and to quash the committee’s Final Report along with all consequential actions. He contends that the process followed lacks legal sanction, breaches the basic structure of the Constitution by violating the separation of powers, and undermines judicial independence.

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.