Supreme Court Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against In-House Inquiry, Upholds CJI's Removal Recommendation

 New Delhi | July 6, 2025 — In a major setback to Justice Yashwant Varma, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed his writ petition challenging the findings of the in-house inquiry that indicted him over alleged possession of unaccounted cash, as well as the subsequent recommendation by the Chief Justice of India for his removal.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih upheld the legitimacy of the internal inquiry mechanism, ruling that Justice Varma’s conduct, as established by the inquiry, was “questionable.” While acknowledging that the uploading of video footage from the inquiry proceedings may not have been appropriate, the court observed that no timely legal challenge had been raised on that specific issue, rendering it ineligible for relief.

Background of the Case

Justice Varma, who previously served on the Delhi High Court and was later repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, approached the apex court to set aside the conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court-constituted in-house inquiry panel, which linked him to serious financial misconduct.

The case stems from a fire incident in March 2025 at Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi. The blaze led to a startling discovery: sacks of unaccounted cash found in a storeroom on the property. The recovery prompted an internal investigation ordered by then Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, who subsequently recommended Varma’s removal.

Although Justice Varma has consistently denied any wrongdoing, the inquiry committee concluded that he and his family members had "covert or active control" over the area where the cash was discovered—findings which the committee deemed serious enough to merit removal from judicial office.

Allegations of Procedural Injustice

In his petition, Justice Varma argued that the principles of natural justice were violated during the inquiry. He claimed he was not provided a fair opportunity to defend himself, and alleged that Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna had denied him a personal hearing, undermining his right to be heard.

However, the Supreme Court bench rejected these arguments, noting that due process had been sufficiently followed under the judiciary’s internal disciplinary framework.

Implications and Next Steps

The dismissal of Justice Varma’s petition marks a significant moment in judicial accountability in India, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s internal oversight mechanism as both valid and enforceable.

Legal experts note that the ruling strengthens the institution’s ability to self-regulate, even as questions linger over procedural transparency in high-stakes disciplinary proceedings.

There has been no official word yet on whether Justice Varma intends to pursue a review petition or challenge the matter through other legal or constitutional remedies.