NEW DELHI, August 7, 2025 : In a significant ruling on Thursday, a Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court seeking to overturn findings of an in-house judicial inquiry. The inquiry had concluded that Justice Varma’s conduct exhibited serious misconduct in connection with the discovery of a large sum of half-burnt cash in the storeroom of his official residence in Delhi—a controversy that emerged in March following a fire incident.
Rejecting Varma’s plea to nullify the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to initiate parliamentary impeachment proceedings, the top court stated that the internal procedure was followed meticulously, save for the publication of video footage and photographs, which were not mandatory under existing rules. “No procedural violation occurred that warranted any relief,” Justice Datta emphasized, noting that Justice Varma had not previously challenged the decision to withhold those materials and had not sought any remedy in his petition.
According to the court, the in-house mechanism honored in the BNS 2023 framework is a constitutionally recognized tool for police the judiciary. It noted there was no infringement on Justice Varma’s fundamental rights. The apex court further clarified that the panel’s conclusion, which linked Justice Varma to the cash cache, was reached based on credible evidence including testimonies from 55 witnesses during the 10-day inquiry, site visits, and documentary proof. The findings indicated that Justice Varma and his family had covert control of the area implicated.
While the court upheld the recommendation to forward the inquiry report to both the President and the Prime Minister, the necessary step for potential impeachment, it granted Justice Varma the liberty to present all his arguments in any future parliamentary proceedings. A separate plea by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, calling for an FIR alleging misuse of court process by Justice Varma, was also dismissed.
The court’s firm language and handling of the case reflect its commitment to upholding integrity within the judiciary: “A Chief Justice is not merely a passive custodian of process; he has duties to the nation” was the bench’s pointed reminder of the constitutional responsibilities resting on judicial leadership.
Justice Varma had argued that the in-house committee reversed the burden of proof, requiring him to disprove the allegations, a claim the court found unconvincing, noting it was not raised earlier and held no legal weight now. The ruling sets a precedent affirming the legitimacy of internally conducted judicial oversight mechanisms, while also reinforcing that public confidence in judicial probity must be preserved.