Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against In-House Probe, Request for FIR

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its ruling on two crucial petitions linked to Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court—one challenging the validity of the in-house judicial inquiry that led to a recommendation for his removal, and the other seeking the initiation of a criminal investigation against him.

A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih concluded hearings in both matters and stated that a verdict would be delivered at a later date.

Background: Why the Case Matters

Justice Varma approached the apex court under anonymity, questioning the constitutional legitimacy of the in-house inquiry process that found allegedly unaccounted cash at his government residence in Delhi. He argues that the process lacks statutory authority, fails to meet basic procedural standards, and bypasses the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution regarding the removal of High Court and Supreme Court judges.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) had constituted the in-house committee, which reportedly concluded that Justice Varma’s conduct warranted removal. Following this, over 150 Members of Parliament—cutting across political lines—endorsed an impeachment motion, now pending in the Lok Sabha.

Today’s Supreme Court Hearing – Key Live Updates (July 30, 2025)

🕧 12:52 PMSC Reserves Order on Both Petitions
The court reserved judgment on Justice Varma’s constitutional challenge to the in-house process and on a separate plea by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, who sought the court’s direction for the registration of an FIR. Justice Datta asked Mr. Nedumpara if he had first approached the police before moving the apex court, suggesting procedural lapses.

🕛 12:24 PMCourt Avoids Commenting on Merits
The Bench reiterated that it would not delve into the truth of the allegations against Justice Varma, as such factual analysis lies within Parliament’s remit during impeachment.

🕥 12:14 PMConcern Over Leaked Inquiry Report
While expressing concern over the leak of confidential inquiry materials, the Bench emphasized that public perception cannot override constitutional procedures.

🕙 11:50 AMDebate Over Status of In-House Procedure
The Bench indicated that the in-house mechanism—though administrative—has a legal foundation through judicial precedents, potentially making it part of the “law of the land.”

🕗 11:43 AMKapil Sibal Criticizes Lack of Due Process
Representing Justice Varma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the process lacked transparency, did not allow cross-examination, and unfairly damaged his client’s reputation without a trial or formal investigation.

Justice Varma’s petition squarely challenges the scope of judicial self-regulation, raising the question: Can judges be investigated and recommended for removal through internal procedures without Parliamentary oversight or statutory backing?

Sibal emphasized that only Parliament, through the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, can legally authorize a judge’s removal. Any parallel mechanism—like the one used here—undermines due process and the separation of powers, he argued.

Impeachment Effort in Parliament

On July 25, a bipartisan group of 152 MPs signed a motion seeking Justice Varma’s removal, marking rare political consensus. Sources say the move was initiated by opposition leaders to pre-empt the NDA from monopolizing credit for action against judicial misconduct.

The motion is currently pending review in the Lok Sabha. If passed, it would trigger a formal inquiry by a Parliamentary committee as per law.

The Broader Impact

This case is being closely monitored across the legal community as it may define the limits of judicial autonomy and clarify the role of in-house disciplinary mechanisms within India’s constitutional architecture.

If the court rules in favor of Justice Varma, it could reshape how allegations of misconduct against sitting judges are handled, placing greater emphasis on statutory inquiry processes rather than internal administrative mechanisms.

Read More: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Legality of In-House Probe Against Justice Yashwant Varma: Full Breakdown of July 30, 2025 Hearing

Amit Sharma
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Sitharaman Orders Swift Withdrawal of Low-Value Tax Appeals to Cut Litigation Load

In a major push to reduce tax-related litigation and improve service delivery,…

Orissa High Court Adjourns GSTAT Judicial Member Selection Case to June 26; Interim Stay on Appointments Continues

The Orissa High Court has adjourned to June 26, 2025, the matter…

Revenue Secretary’s Schedule for July 2025: GSTAT Setup One Of The Key Topics

It is learnt that the Department of Revenue, under the Ministry of…

FM Sitharaman Chairs 29th FSDC Meeting in Mumbai; Calls for Faster Refunds and Seamless KYC Across Financial Sector

Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, chaired the…