Judge Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court has moved the Supreme Court, contesting the findings of a three-judge in-house panel and the subsequent recommendation for his removal made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The case stems from allegations involving unaccounted cash found at his residence — a controversy that has quickly escalated into a larger legal and constitutional debate over judicial accountability, procedural fairness, and the limits of internal disciplinary mechanisms within the Indian judiciary.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when cash was reportedly discovered at the residence of Judge Varma. The Supreme Court responded by constituting an in-house inquiry panel, composed of three senior judges: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The panel concluded that there were grounds for recommending Judge Varma’s removal, a suggestion endorsed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna.
However, Judge Varma has now filed a petition before the apex court, disputing the entire process. His plea challenges the validity of the in-house procedure itself and criticizes how it was executed, claiming it violated his constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.
The Five Core Grounds of the Petition
1. In-House Procedure is Extra-Constitutional
Judge Varma’s primary argument is that the in-house procedure, developed by the Supreme Court in 1999 for handling complaints against judges, lacks constitutional legitimacy. He contends that it creates a parallel mechanism for disciplinary action that bypasses the constitutional provisions under Articles 124 and 218, which assign exclusive authority for the removal of judges to Parliament.
He argues that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 already provides a comprehensive, legally sanctioned framework for investigating and potentially removing a judge. According to him, the in-house process not only sidesteps this statutory framework but also encroaches upon the powers of the legislature, violating the separation of powers doctrine.
2. Supreme Court and CJI Lack Disciplinary Authority Over High Court Judges
The second key point in Judge Varma’s petition is that the Constitution does not confer any disciplinary or supervisory authority on the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India over High Court judges. He argues that internal mechanisms like the in-house procedure cannot be used to override the constitutionally protected independence and tenure of judges.
In his view, granting the CJI the power to recommend removal based solely on an internal report creates a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial independence.
3. Violation of Natural Justice
Judge Varma also claims that the in-house inquiry violated basic principles of natural justice. According to the petition, the panel began proceedings without a formal complaint, relying only on unproven suspicions related to the cash recovery.
He further alleges that he was never informed of the procedures adopted by the panel and was denied an opportunity to rebut or respond to the evidence gathered. The petition notes that witness statements were paraphrased rather than recorded in video or verbatim format and were never shared with him in full.
Crucially, he states that the panel failed to collect essential evidence such as CCTV footage that could have exonerated him or established the source of the cash. He emphasizes that the committee never conclusively identified whose money it was, or how much was actually discovered.
4. Inadequate Time to Respond to Final Report
Judge Varma further alleges that he was given insufficient time to review the committee’s final report before CJI Khanna made the recommendation for his removal. He asserts that he was neither granted a personal hearing nor given a chance to present his side to the senior-most judges before such a serious decision was made.
He also claims he was pressured to resign or opt for voluntary retirement within an unreasonably short timeframe, which he argues is a violation of fair process.
5. Unjust Media Trial and Breach of Confidentiality
Finally, Varma has accused the judiciary of exposing him to a media trial. He argues that the public disclosure of the allegations and findings of the in-house panel—unprecedented in such cases—led to reputational damage. He believes this public leak breached the confidentiality expected from internal judicial processes and went against the guidelines set by a previous Constitution Bench.
The petition points out that the media leaks, which portrayed the committee’s findings in a one-sided manner, went unaddressed by the judiciary. He maintains that this not only affected his personal image but also set a dangerous precedent for handling sensitive judicial matters.
Looking Ahead
Judge Varma’s petition brings to the forefront critical issues regarding judicial independence, accountability, and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court’s response to his plea will not only determine the future of Varma’s position but could also shape the way judicial misconduct is addressed in India moving forward.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the apex court’s interpretation of constitutional safeguards and the permissible boundaries of internal mechanisms like the in-house procedure.
