The Supreme Court on Monday posed sharp questions to Justice Yashwant Varma as it began hearing his petition challenging an in-house judicial committee’s findings that allegedly linked him to sacks of charred currency recovered from his official residence in Delhi.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih expressed concern over how the petition was filed and questioned the timing of Justice Varma’s legal challenge.
They pointedly asked why he chose to participate in the inquiry if he believed the process to be unconstitutional, only to approach the court after the findings went against him.
“You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say you didn’t know. You could have immediately come to us and raised all these points,” the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Justice Varma.
Further questioning the motive and timing of the petition, the bench asked, “Why did you appear before the committee and not challenge it then and there? If this (the report) is of no worth, what are you challenging?”
Justice Varma has challenged the May 3 findings of the in-house judicial panel, which found “strong inferential evidence” suggesting his covert or active control over the charred currency sacks.
The panel’s findings were followed by a May 8 communication from then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, recommending impeachment proceedings.
The committee was constituted after a fire broke out on March 14 at Justice Varma’s official residence, during which sacks filled with charred cash were reportedly discovered. At the time, he was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court.
The court also identified multiple procedural lapses in the filing of the petition. Justice Datta remarked, “This petition should not have been filed so casually.
There are three respondents. The Union of India was not required. Registrar of the confidential cell is not required. You only required the Secretary General of the court. And there your copy shows it as ‘Registrar General’. It shows the casual approach.”
Sibal acknowledged these mistakes and said corrections would be made.
He argued that the procedure adopted by the in-house panel violated constitutional safeguards under Article 124(5), contending that a judge’s conduct can only be scrutinized after an impeachment motion is initiated in Parliament. He cited the 1991 Constitution Bench ruling in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India.
He added that the process lacked fairness: “The report was made public even before the process for removal began.
The video showing the charred cash was released on day one. The man stood convicted then and there… and what is he asked in the inquiry? ‘Where is the cash from? Why did you not object to your transfer?”
The bench, however, questioned this account: “Where are you getting this from?” When Sibal claimed the report was now public, the court retorted: “If you want us to go through the report, you should have annexed it. You want us to read it and then ask questions? That’s not fair.”
The judges reminded the petitioner that the in-house inquiry was rooted in a past Supreme Court judgment and that the final decision on removal rests with Parliament. “In-house procedure is a private judgment. If you have any qualms against the judgment, there are other remedies,” they noted.
They added: “What is the worth of this report? There will have to be independent evidence under the Judges’ Inquiry Act. If this is of no worth, what are you challenging?”
Responding to Sibal’s assertion that the communication to the President and PM was unconstitutional, the bench said:
“Why do you think that sending it to the President is wrong? The President is the appointing authority for the judges of constitutional courts. Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the PM, it was sent to the PM. Sending it to them doesn’t mean the CJI is persuading Parliament to act.”
Touching on ethical standards, the court stated: “It can also be misbehaviour under the Bangalore Principles.” When Sibal responded that this does not justify removal, the court replied: “One does not know.”
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted in 2002, serve as a global framework for ethical behavior in the judiciary. Indian courts have occasionally cited these principles, particularly when addressing judicial misconduct and the preservation of impartiality.
The Supreme Court has now scheduled the next hearing for July 30, directing Sibal to rectify procedural errors and submit the inquiry report.
In a parallel matter, the court also heard a plea from advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking a criminal probe into the fire and the recovery of charred cash. The bench criticized the petition’s vague presentation:
“Your petition is worse insofar as verification of facts is concerned. It reads as if you were present when the fire broke out and cash was recovered. What is true to your knowledge and what is derived from other sources? That has not been clarified.”
This matter, too, will be heard on July 30.
Meanwhile, the political process for impeachment has commenced. On July 21, the first day of the monsoon session, 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitted notices seeking Justice Varma’s removal.
The in-house panel—comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman—found no direct evidence of Justice Varma handling the cash, but concluded his conduct had “belied the trust” reposed in a constitutional judge, thereby warranting impeachment proceedings.
Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing, calling the entire episode a conspiracy. In a May 6 letter to CJI Khanna, he refused to resign or opt for voluntary retirement. He has since been stripped of judicial responsibilities and transferred to his parent High Court in Allahabad.
#SupremeCourt #JusticeYashwantVarma #JudicialAccountability #Impeachment #JudicialEthics #BangalorePrinciples #InHouseInquiry #KapilSibal #CharredCurrencyCase #JudiciaryIndia #ConstitutionalLaw #JudicialMisconduct