Justice Yashwant Varma Moves Supreme Court Against Impeachment Recommendation Following Cash Scandal

New Delhi – Justice Yashwant Varma has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry committee that recommended initiating impeachment proceedings against him. The move comes months after a high-profile controversy erupted over the discovery of burnt currency notes at his official residence in the capital earlier this year.

In his petition, Justice Varma contends that the inquiry process violated the principles of natural justice. He has argued that he was not granted a fair opportunity to present his case and specifically noted that then-Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, denied him a personal hearing before the committee reached its conclusions.

The Controversy: Fire, Cash, and a Judicial Crisis

The controversy began in March 2025, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence at 30 Tughlak Crescent in New Delhi, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court. The subsequent discovery of charred currency notes—reportedly stored in sacks inside the outhouse—raised alarm and triggered an internal probe.

Following initial inquiries, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court. A three-member committee, constituted under the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure and led by Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaraman, was tasked with investigating the incident. The committee found sufficient evidence to conclude that Justice Varma and members of his household exercised “covert or active control” over the premises where the cash was found—an allegation serious enough to warrant his removal from office.

Justice Varma denied all allegations and refused to resign. In response, Chief Justice Khanna escalated the matter by referring it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for further action, in accordance with the constitutional process for judicial impeachment.

Key Findings of the Inquiry Panel

A leaked copy of the committee’s confidential 64-page report, submitted on May 4, 2025, laid bare several inconsistencies and raised critical concerns over transparency and judicial conduct.

The report cited significant contradictions between the statements of Justice Varma’s long-serving domestic staff—most of whom hail from his native district—and independent witnesses. While the staff uniformly denied witnessing any suspicious activity or the presence of currency at the site, their testimony was sharply at odds with third-party accounts and forensic findings.

The panel also flagged a concerning pattern of uniform exculpatory narratives from the household staff, which it deemed “not fully credible.” Forensic evidence indicated that the burnt currency had likely been removed from the premises during the early hours of March 15, just before the incident became public.

In addition, the report highlighted serious lapses in communication protocols and internal oversight, prompting broader questions about accountability within the judiciary.

Looking Ahead

Justice Varma’s legal challenge now places the spotlight firmly on the Supreme Court, which must determine whether the in-house inquiry process adhered to due process and whether the impeachment recommendation can withstand judicial scrutiny.

The case continues to raise profound questions about transparency, internal checks, and the mechanisms in place to uphold the integrity of the higher judiciary.