The Supreme Court sharply questioned Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday over his plea to invalidate a three-judge in-house inquiry panel’s report that indicted him for misconduct after a large cache of burnt cash was found at his official Delhi residence on March 14, 2025. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, reserved its order on Varma’s petition, which challenges the panel’s findings and former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s May 8 recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings. The court also reserved judgment on a separate plea by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara seeking an FIR against Varma.

The controversy erupted when firefighters, responding to a blaze at Varma’s 30-Tughlak Crescent residence, discovered sacks of half-burnt Rs 500 notes, estimated at Rs 15 crore, though unconfirmed officially. The panel, comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana), G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka), conducted a 10-day inquiry, examining 55 witnesses, including Varma’s daughter, and evidence like videos and photos. The report concluded Varma had “covert or active control” over the storeroom, deeming his failure to explain the cash’s origin and his “unnatural conduct”—including not filing a police complaint—as serious misconduct warranting impeachment.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Varma, argued that the in-house inquiry, established in 1999, lacks constitutional validity under Articles 124 and 218, which vest judge removal powers solely in Parliament via the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Sibal called the process a “parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism” that violates natural justice by reversing the burden of proof and denying Varma a fair hearing, cross-examination, or evidence standards. He contended that CJI Khanna’s recommendation to the President and Prime Minister “sounds the death knell” for a judge, influencing Parliament unduly. Sibal also criticized the public release of a video on the Supreme Court’s website, claiming it fueled a media trial and damaged Varma’s reputation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Blasts Tamil Nadu’s ‘Fraud’ in Senthil Balaji Cash-for-Jobs Case

Justice Datta countered, stating, “The Chief Justice of India is not a post office. He has duties to the nation as the judiciary’s leader.” The bench questioned why Varma participated in the inquiry without challenging its validity earlier, remarking, “Your conduct does not inspire confidence. You waited for the report, found it unfavorable, and then came here.” When Sibal argued the inquiry’s persuasive weight could sway Parliament, Datta clarified it is preliminary and non-binding, emphasizing Parliament’s autonomy under Article 141. The bench also grilled Nedumpara, asking if he had filed a police complaint before seeking an FIR, to which he responded that an FIR was essential.

Varma, transferred to Allahabad High Court on March 28, 2025, without judicial duties, denied the allegations, labeling them a conspiracy. The panel rejected this, citing eyewitness accounts from fire and police officials and evidence showing the storeroom’s exclusive access by Varma’s family. The report noted attempts by Varma’s staff to remove the cash post-fire, with a private secretary allegedly instructing fire officials to omit the discovery from records. Over 145 MPs, including Rahul Gandhi and Anurag Thakur, have signed an impeachment motion, set for Parliament’s Monsoon Session, marking a historic first for a sitting judge in independent India.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Stay on Bihar Voter Roll Revision