The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the findings of a three-judge in-house inquiry committee and the subsequent recommendation by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih rejected the plea, which argued that Justice Varma had not been given a fair opportunity to respond before the committee submitted its report.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of Justice Varma, who had previously served on the Delhi High Court bench.
The case stems from a controversial incident on March 14, when fire tenders responding to a fire at his Delhi residence reportedly discovered a large amount of burnt currency. Justice Varma was not present at the property at the time.
During an earlier hearing on July 28, the apex court raised several critical questions. It asked why Justice Varma had chosen to appear before the in-house committee if he believed the process was unconstitutional, and why he failed to challenge the committee’s formation at the outset.
“There have been judges in the past who refused to appear before such panels. Why did you participate if you believed it lacked legal validity?” the bench asked Sibal. “You’re a constitutional authority—you cannot now say you didn’t know. You should have come to this Court immediately and raised your concerns then.”
The court underlined that a constitutional functionary such as a High Court judge is expected to be aware of procedural recourse and must act in a timely manner.
Meanwhile, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed that the impeachment motion for Justice Varma would be introduced in the Lok Sabha first, in accordance with parliamentary procedure.
Speaking to reporters, Rijiju said, “All political parties have agreed that the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma must be a joint decision. The motion will be brought in the Lok Sabha and, if passed, then moved to the Rajya Sabha.”
He stressed that the impeachment process was a collective responsibility of Parliament, not just the government. “This is not a partisan issue. The matter of judicial corruption is of national concern. The removal of a judge—be it from the Supreme Court or a High Court—must reflect the unity of Parliament.”
The Court framed six key questions for determination:
Maintainability
It held that a writ petition challenging the conduct of a sitting judge under an in-house mechanism is not maintainable.
Legal Procedure
The in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework.
Violation of Rights
The Court found no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
Compliance with Process
The Chief Justice of India and the inquiry committee “scrupulously followed the process.” The uploading of photographs and videos was deemed non-essential, especially as no objection was raised at the time.
Communications to Executive
Sending the report to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional.
Liberty for Future
The Court left open the possibility for Justice Varma to raise grievances through appropriate remedies in the future, if required.
