In a dramatic turn of events that has sent ripples through the Indian judiciary and political corridors, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Wednesday announced that he would constitute a special bench to hear the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.
However, CJI Gavai made it clear that he would not be part of the bench, citing prior involvement in internal discussions relating to the matter.
Justice Varma is contesting the findings of a Supreme Court-appointed in-house inquiry panel, which concluded there was “strong inferential evidence” of his “covert or active control” over sacks of charred currency discovered at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year. At the time of the incident, he was serving as a judge in the Delhi High Court.
CJI Gavai Recuses Himself
The petition was urgently mentioned before the CJI by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, who pressed for early listing due to the significant constitutional issues at stake. Acknowledging the urgency, CJI Gavai assured that a bench would be set up to hear the matter, but recused himself from being part of it.
“It would not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was part of that conversation,” CJI Gavai said, referring to earlier deliberations held within the Supreme Court collegium regarding the incident and subsequent proceedings.
Impeachment Proceedings Gaining Steam
This judicial development comes even as the central government is gearing up to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma in Parliament. On July 21, the first day of the ongoing Monsoon Session, 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha members formally submitted notices in their respective Houses, demanding Justice Varma’s removal.
The impeachment push is based on a report submitted on May 3, 2025, by a three-member in-house judicial inquiry committee, followed by a May 8 recommendation by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, calling for Parliament to initiate removal proceedings under constitutional provisions.
Justice Varma’s Petition: A Strong Rebuttal
Justice Varma filed his writ petition before the Supreme Court on July 17, questioning the legality, fairness, and conclusions of the in-house committee. The petition brands the committee’s report as “unsustainable,” its methods as “perverse,” and alleges that the panel functioned with an “outcome-driven approach” based on a “preconceived narrative.”
Justice Varma contended that the panel failed to properly examine key facts, such as the ownership, origin, and recovery circumstances of the charred cash found at his government-allotted bungalow in Delhi on March 14. Although he acknowledged that currency notes might have been found at the outhouse, he emphasized that no investigation had been conducted to establish his culpability.
The judge further accused the inquiry panel of reversing the burden of proof, effectively requiring him to disprove allegations without being given a fair opportunity to defend himself. His petition also objected to the May 8 recommendation by then-CJI Khanna, arguing that it violated the constitutional safeguards meant to protect the independence and dignity of sitting judges.
The In-House Committee’s Findings
The three-judge inquiry panel, headed by Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), with Justices GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh HC) and Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka HC), had been constituted on March 22 and submitted its report on May 3.
Their 64-page report concluded that while no direct evidence linked Justice Varma to the currency stash, there existed “strong inferential evidence” suggesting his knowledge or control over the hidden cash. The report harshly criticized his conduct, stating that it “belied the trust” placed in a constitutional judge.
“The burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do, except projecting a flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy,” the committee observed.