Justice Yashwant Varma Seeks Judicial Review OF the Findings Of In House Inquiry Committee Against Him

Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court and former judge of the Delhi High Court, has approached the Supreme Court seeking judicial review of the findings of an internal in-house inquiry committee that investigated the recovery of a large sum of cash from the outhouse of his official residence.

In his writ petition, Justice Varma has strongly contested the findings and procedures followed by the committee, asserting that mere recovery of currency notes from the premises cannot be used as conclusive evidence of personal wrongdoing, especially in the absence of answers to critical questions regarding ownership, origin, and circumstances of the alleged stash.

Justice Varma’s contention revolves around the lack of concrete evidence and the allegedly flawed methodology adopted by the three-member in-house panel constituted by then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

He alleges that the inquiry was not only procedurally unfair but also appeared to be prejudged and hastily conducted, with the apparent objective of establishing culpability rather than seeking truth.
#JudicialFairness #DueProcess

Justice Varma acknowledges that he does not dispute the discovery of cash on March 14, 2025, following a fire incident at the outhouse of his official Delhi residence. However, he strongly argues that the mere presence of the cash is not in itself incriminating, particularly when no official inquiry has been able to determine:

1. When, how, and by whom the cash was placed in the premises;
2. The actual amount recovered;
3. Whether the currency was genuine or counterfeit;
4. What caused the fire—was it accidental or deliberate?
5. Whether he or any member of his household was responsible for any attempted removal of burnt currency on March 15, 2025.

According to Justice Varma, these unanswered questions are pivotal and should have been addressed thoroughly by the committee before reaching any adverse findings.

He has asserted that without establishing these foundational facts, any inference of guilt remains highly speculative.
#BurdenOfProof #PresumptionOfInnocence

He further questioned why the committee chose to proceed without affording him a reasonable opportunity to respond to specific allegations, and why exculpatory evidence—including CCTV footage and digital logs—was allegedly ignored despite multiple requests. Justice Varma has raised serious concerns about how the panel operated:

• He was not informed about the procedures it intended to follow.
• He was not given access to unedited video recordings of witness testimonies.
• Witnesses were allegedly examined in his absence.
• Only incriminating material was selectively disclosed, while mitigating or neutral evidence was withheld.
• He was denied personal hearings.
• No tentative case or charges were shared with him.
• The burden of proof was reversed without legal justification.
  #NaturalJustice #RightToDefense

Moreover, Justice Varma has challenged the very constitutionality of the in-house procedure, contending that such internal mechanisms do not have statutory backing.

He argued that since removal of a High Court judge falls strictly within the purview of Parliament, any action initiated by the Chief Justice of India without a parliamentary mandate violates the constitutional separation of powers.

In his petition, Justice Varma also expressed deep anguish over the premature public release of case materials, including videos and photographs, before the inquiry even began.

He contended that the unauthorised disclosure of confidential material not only caused irreparable damage to his personal and professional reputation, but also prejudiced public opinion, undermining the very fairness of the inquiry.
#ReputationMatters #MediaTrial

Justice Varma highlighted how media leaks of the Final Report led to sensationalised and often inaccurate reporting, which was neither clarified nor condemned by the judiciary.

He claimed this continued breach of confidentiality intensified his public vilification and severely impacted his family’s mental and emotional well-being.

The controversy began on March 14, 2025, when during a fire incident at the official quarters of Justice Varma in Delhi, fire personnel discovered bundles of currency notes in a burnt condition in the outhouse. This incident led to a national media frenzy and public outrage. In response, CJI Sanjiv Khanna formed an in-house judicial committee comprising:

• Justice Sheel Nagu, then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court
• Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court

Justice Varma was then repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial responsibilities were withdrawn pending investigation.

The committee, after examining 55 witnesses—including Justice Varma and his daughter—and reviewing photographic and video evidence from the fire department, concluded that the recovered cash was located in a storeroom allegedly under the “covert or active control” of Justice Varma and his family.

The report claimed that his post-incident behavior was “unnatural”, and that his failure to offer a convincing explanation justified adverse findings against him.
#JudicialIntegrity

However, Justice Varma has dismissed this reasoning as circular and unconvincing, asserting that his response to the incident, including his attempts to understand and seek clarity on the matter, should not be misconstrued as evidence of guilt.

The Final Report was submitted in May 2025 to CJI Khanna, who then forwarded it to the President and the Prime Minister for further action, following Justice Varma’s refusal to resign as advised by the Chief Justice.

The current legal proceedings seek to question the legitimacy and procedural soundness of that internal inquiry.

As the Supreme Court begins reviewing this petition, Justice Varma’s case has reopened debates on the transparency, accountability, and legal basis of in-house mechanisms in the Indian judiciary.

Observers and legal experts await whether this high-profile case will lead to judicial reforms in how disciplinary inquiries into judges are conducted in the absence of clear statutory frameworks.
#JudicialReform #RuleOfLaw