The Supreme Court of India, on July 30, 2025, conducted a significant hearing concerning a constitutional challenge mounted by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. He is contesting the validity of an in-house judicial inquiry that found him to have “covert or active control” over a cache of burned and partially burned cash discovered at his official Delhi residence following a fire on the night of March 14–15, 2025.
Filed under the anonymized title “XXX v. Union of India,” the petition was heard by a bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih. The case raises fundamental questions about judicial accountability, procedural fairness, and the scope of Parliament’s exclusive authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against sitting judges under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution.
Live Hearing Highlights – July 30, 2025
11:31 AM – Submission of Report
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted the complete in-house committee report to the bench.
11:39 AM – Questioning Procedural Fairness
Sibal argued that the in-house procedure lacks basic elements of due process such as formal framing of charges, opportunity for cross-examination, and evidentiary safeguards. He highlighted the gravity of adverse findings made by a panel appointed by the Chief Justice of India without statutory backing.
11:43 AM – Parliamentary Supremacy Invoked
Emphasizing constitutional structure, Sibal submitted that only Parliament holds the power to remove judges, and any parallel system infringes on that exclusive jurisdiction.
11:50 AM – Justification of In-House Mechanism
Justice Datta stated that the in-house procedure, though informal, is a product of judicial precedent and serves the purpose of internal oversight without undermining Parliament’s role.
11:54 AM – Interpretation of Judges (Protection) Act
The bench invoked Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, to examine whether an internal judicial inquiry qualifies as a permissible authority-based action.
12:03 PM – CJI’s Role Discussed
Justice Datta clarified that the Chief Justice’s involvement in forwarding the report to the President is administrative, not determinative of guilt, thus preserving Parliament’s domain.
12:10 PM – Delay in Legal Challenge
The bench queried the petitioner’s delay in filing the petition. Sibal responded that the adverse findings warranted urgent legal redress only once impeachment was imminent.
12:21 PM – Concerns Over Leaks
Sibal raised concerns about the leak of the inquiry report and supporting audio recordings, which have prejudiced public perception. The Court acknowledged the impropriety of the leak but noted it may not impact parliamentary procedure.
12:24 PM – No Interference in Merits
The bench indicated its reluctance to examine the substantive allegations against Justice Varma, reiterating that such matters lie within the purview of the parliamentary impeachment process.
Background and Allegations
A fire incident in March 2025 at Justice Varma’s government-allotted Delhi residence led to the discovery of severely damaged currency notes stored in an outhouse. A three-judge inquiry panel was formed by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The panel’s report concluded that Justice Varma had effective control over the cash.
The report, which included testimonies of 55 witnesses and forensic and CCTV evidence, recommended impeachment proceedings. The matter was escalated to the President, and a motion for removal has reportedly been signed by more than 150 Members of Parliament in the ongoing Monsoon Session.
Constitutional Stakes and Legal Arguments
Parliamentary Authority vs Judicial Oversight
Justice Varma’s petition challenges the legality of the in-house inquiry by asserting that only the procedure under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, sanctioned by Articles 124 and 218, can be used to investigate judicial misconduct.
Fairness and Due Process
The petitioner argues that the absence of statutory safeguards in in-house inquiries undermines judicial independence and exposes judges to reputational harm without recourse.
In-House Inquiry Precedent
The Supreme Court bench maintained that the in-house procedure, despite being non-statutory, is recognized as lawful under past rulings. It serves as an internal fact-finding mechanism and not a punitive process.
Implications
This case could redefine the interplay between judicial independence and public accountability. If the Court rules against the in-house process, it may curtail the judiciary’s ability to self-regulate and increase reliance on parliamentary proceedings for addressing allegations.
Conversely, a ruling upholding the in-house mechanism would reinforce internal checks within the judiciary while preserving Parliament’s ultimate authority to remove judges.
Next Steps
The Court has adjourned further hearing to allow Sibal to submit a concise summary of arguments and place the full committee report on record. The matter is expected to continue later this week.
Key Constitutional Provisions Cited
- Article 124 & 218: Governs the procedure for impeachment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Offers legal immunity for judicial actions.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Establishes the framework for parliamentary impeachment proceedings.
Conclusion
The Justice Yashwant Varma case brings to the forefront urgent constitutional questions about judicial accountability mechanisms in India. As the Supreme Court balances internal oversight with constitutional mandates, its decision will likely set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for judicial conduct and democratic checks and balances.
Read More: Dimple Yadav Mosque Visit Row: Unpacking the Gendered Lens of Secular Politics in India
- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against In-House Probe, Request for FIR - July 30, 2025
- Supreme Court Scrutinizes Legality of In-House Probe Against Justice Yashwant Varma: Full Breakdown of July 30, 2025 Hearing - July 30, 2025
- Dimple Yadav Mosque Visit Row: Unpacking the Gendered Lens of Secular Politics in India - July 30, 2025
