Cash Row: Supreme Court Hearing On Justice Yashwant Varma's Plea Against Impeachment Move Underway | Latest Updates

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is currently hearing the plea of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court in connection with the huge amount of burnt cash found at his house, challenging the in-house three-judge inquiry committee's report and former CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih are hearing the plea.

Justice Varma has said that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond by the in-house inquiry committee before it gave its findings.

During the hearing, Supreme Court asked Justice Varma, “Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take chance of favourable order there first?”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that due process needs to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution and that a judge cannot be subjected to public scrutiny, according to reports.

To this response, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?"

145 Lok Sabha MPs have submitted an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma to the Speaker, citing recovery of partially burnt ₹500 notes from his official residence on March 15, 2025. Signatories include leaders from BJP, Congress, TDP, JDU, and others. The motion invokes Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution.

The cash was allegedly found by firefighters when a fire broke out at the judge's residence in Delhi on March 14, while he was a judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge was not present at his house. Varma has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom.

In his plea, Justice Varma alleged that the committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and, even without finding any concrete evidence, merely drew adverse inferences against him after reversing the burden of proof.

He sought a declaration that the recommendation by the CJI on May 8, 2025, to the President and the Prime Minister for initiation of his removal as a High Court Judge is "unconstitutional and ultra vires".

"The Petitioner is not in possession of a copy of the communication dated May 8, but assigns the action on various constitutional parameters. The petitioner is seeking the indulgence of this court challenging the process culminating in the communication of the then CJI to the President and to the Prime Minister by way of his communication dated May 8 seeking the initiation of removal proceedings of the petitioner as a Judge of a High Court," the petition stated.

He said that the in-house procedure, adopted via a 1999 Full Court Resolution to handle complaints against judges and preserve judicial independence while maintaining public faith, "unjustifiably extends beyond the intended scope of self-regulation and fact-finding".

"By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism that derogates from the mandatory framework under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution, which exclusively vest powers for removal of judges of the High Courts in Parliament through an address supported by a special majority, following an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968," stated the petition.

It further submitted that the in-house, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority to the extent that it empowers the judiciary to recommend or opine on the removal of Judges from constitutionally held office.

"This violates the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as the judiciary cannot assume the role reserved for the legislature in the removal of judges," added the plea.

Justice Varma also sought quashing of the final report dated May 3 of the in-house committee constituted by the CJI and all actions consequential thereto.

Invocation of the in-house procedure was "improper and invalid" since it was done in the absence of any formal complaint against Justice Varma, said the plea.

The plea said the committee denied him access to evidence, withheld CCTV footage, and offered no chance to rebut allegations. Key witnesses were examined in his absence, violating natural justice, he added.

The committee was constituted on March 22 by then CJI Khanna to probe the incident, comprising of Justices Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court).

(With inputs from ANI)

Also Read: 'This Is Deception': Kiren Rijiju Slams Opposition For Finding Ways To 'Run Away' From Discussion On Operation Sindoor