In a significant development that could set off a constitutional and political showdown, Justice Yashwant Varma, a senior judge of the Allahabad High Court, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the findings of an in-house judicial inquiry panel and block a recommendation for his impeachment over alleged misconduct.
The controversy stems from the discovery of charred currency bundles at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year, which sparked an internal judicial investigation and now threatens to culminate in parliamentary proceedings to remove him from office. #JusticeVarmaControversy
What Justice Varma Is Challenging
Justice Varma, in his petition, has urged the apex court to nullify both the inquiry panel’s report and the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna calling for impeachment proceedings. He has argued that the report was the product of a process that, in his words, “ran roughshod over his constitutional rights and natural justice.”
In particular, the judge has questioned the validity of the panel’s conclusion that there exists “strong inferential evidence” suggesting his “covert or active control” over the unexplained cash discovered at his residence. He asserts that such conclusions were reached without a full and fair hearing or sufficient factual inquiry.
Sequence of Events: From Fire to Impeachment Recommendation
The entire episode was triggered on March 14, when a fire broke out in the outhouse of Justice Varma’s government bungalow in Delhi. During firefighting operations, responders reportedly discovered sacks filled with partially burnt currency notes, prompting serious alarm within judicial and law enforcement circles.
The incident was reported to the CJI by the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, after which an in-house investigation was initiated. A three-judge inquiry panel was constituted on March 22, comprising:
- Justice Sheel Nagu, then Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Justice GS Sandhawalia, then Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge, Karnataka High Court
This panel submitted its 64-page report on May 3, concluding that Justice Varma was liable for serious misconduct. The CJI then formally recommended impeachment to the President and Prime Minister of India. #JudicialAccountability
Judge’s Stand: Denial, Allegations of Bias, and “Conspiracy” Claim
Justice Varma has consistently denied any wrongdoing, characterizing the discovery of the cash as part of a “conspiracy” to malign his reputation. In a detailed letter to CJI Khanna dated May 6, he refused to resign or seek voluntary retirement—options reportedly advised to him—calling the entire process “fundamentally unjust.”
In his Supreme Court petition, Justice Varma has alleged that the inquiry panel functioned with an outcome-driven approach, sought to reverse the burden of proof, and denied him adequate opportunity to defend himself.
He contends that while some currency may have indeed been recovered from the outhouse, no effort was made to properly investigate the ownership, authenticity, or origin of the money. Rather than pursuing a rigorous fact-finding process, the panel allegedly relied on inference and concluded without clear or direct evidence. #NaturalJustice
Panel’s Findings and the “Burden of Explanation”
The inquiry committee’s report stated that while no direct proof existed linking the judge to the cash stash, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence suggesting his knowledge and control of it. The panel stressed that, once the cash was found on the premises, the onus shifted to Justice Varma to offer a plausible explanation, which, in their view, he failed to do.
The report declared that Justice Varma’s denials and claims of conspiracy were unsubstantiated and “bald,” falling short of the expectations placed upon a high constitutional functionary. #PublicTrust
It emphasized that whether the concealment of cash was done by him or with his knowledge, the fact that it was found at his residence compromised the dignity of the judiciary and constituted grounds for impeachment.
Political Ripple Effect: Government and Opposition Jockey for Position
The controversy has taken a political turn ahead of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, which begins July 21, where the government is expected to move an impeachment motion. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal is likely to introduce the motion, and the Union government has reached out to Opposition parties to rally support. #ImpeachmentMotion
Adding further intrigue, Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, speaking at a public forum on May 19, questioned the legal and constitutional validity of the in-house procedure itself. He labeled it “inconsequential” and suggested that a formal criminal investigation might be a more appropriate course of action.
Justice Varma Not Alone: Opposition Revives Justice Yadav Case
In a parallel development, members of the Opposition’s INDIA bloc are preparing to revive a long-pending impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. This notice, originally submitted on December 13, 2024, by 55 MPs, cited a controversial speech delivered by the judge at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event.
Although the Supreme Court briefly considered launching an in-house inquiry, it later deferred action after the Rajya Sabha Secretariat asserted its exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. No further progress has been reported since. #JusticeYadavCase
Senior leaders like Kapil Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, and Saket Gokhale have raised concerns about what they describe as “selective action”, questioning why the government has not acted on the Opposition-backed motion even as it pushes ahead in the case of Justice Varma.
What Lies Ahead
Justice Varma’s petition is expected to be listed before a Supreme Court bench shortly, even as political and judicial circles brace for a stormy session in Parliament. The outcome of this legal battle—and the political consensus around his impeachment—may have far-reaching implications for judicial independence, transparency, and the future of in-house inquiry mechanisms. #JudiciaryUnderWatch