New Delhi | August 7, 2025 

The Supreme Court of India today firmly rejected the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, who had sought to invalidate the in-house inquiry report that found him unfit to continue in judicial office following a controversial fire incident at his residence where large quantities of unaccounted cash were discovered.

 

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih ruled that the in-house inquiry process initiated by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, was valid, and the recommendation to commence removal proceedings against the judge was legally and procedurally sound.

 

“The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence,” observed the bench, while concluding that the petition was “not worth entertaining.”

 

On March 14, 2025, a fire broke out in a storeroom at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. While putting out the blaze, firefighters stumbled upon stacks of cash stored in cupboards, triggering suspicions of illegal assets.

 

Following this, an in-house judicial inquiry was initiated under the oversight of the Chief Justice of India. The three-member committee reportedly concluded that Justice Varma had “constructive control” over the location where the money was found, and recommended the initiation of removal proceedings under Article 124(4) read with Article 217 of the Constitution.

 

Justice Varma, in turn, approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the process was flawed, lacked transparency, and violated his right to a fair hearing.

 

The bench delivered a detailed ruling addressing key objections raised by Justice Varma:

• On Video/Photo Evidence: The Court noted that while video footage and photographs were not shared during the inquiry, Justice Varma did not raise any objection at the time and chose to participate in the proceedings. The objection was therefore “belated and inconsistent.”

• On Process Validity: The Court ruled that the in-house procedure—though not a statutory inquiry—does not fall foul of the Constitution. It clarified that the Chief Justice’s act of forwarding the report to the President and Prime Minister was part of a legitimate constitutional chain of communication in a judge’s potential removal.

• On Maintainability: The Court held that a judicial review of such in-house mechanisms cannot be invoked lightly, especially when the petitioner has partially participated in the process without protest.

 

“There is no error in the procedure warranting our interference. The petition is dismissed,” said Justice Datta, delivering the ruling.

 

With the top court refusing to intervene, the onus now lies on Parliament to act upon the recommendation. If a motion for removal is introduced, it would require a two-thirds majority in both houses for Justice Varma to be formally removed.

 

This is one of the rare instances where the in-house mechanism, usually conducted discreetly, has entered public and parliamentary scrutiny due to the high-profile nature of the case.