CJI Gavai Refuses to Hear Justice Varma’s Plea in Cash-at-Residence Case; Supreme Court to Form New Bench

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday recused himself from hearing the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, who has challenged the findings of an in-house inquiry panel probing the cash-at-residence case. The CJI said it "may not be proper" for him to hear the matter and directed that a new bench be constituted.

The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Prominent senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Justice Varma.

The counsels urged the Chief Justice to constitute a fresh bench at the earliest. “Some constitutional issues are there. I request you to constitute a bench as soon as possible,” one of the senior lawyers stated.

Responding to the request, CJI BR Gavai stated, “It may not be proper for me to take up that matter. We will just take a call and constitute a bench.”

Justice Varma Case: Timeline of Key Events

March 14, 2025: A fire breaks out at the official residence of Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma, in a storeroom at night. A servant informs his personal secretary, who then alerts the police.

March 15, 2025: The Commissioner of Police shares photographs and video footage showing bags of burnt cash in the charred storeroom with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay.

March 16, 2025: Security personnel report that some half-burnt items and debris were removed from the site earlier that morning. This is included in the Commissioner’s report.

March 16, 2025: Justice Upadhyay’s Registrar-cum-Secretary visits the site along with Justice Varma and his personal secretary. They observe material hanging from the roof and partially burnt objects.

March 20, 2025: The Supreme Court Collegium meets to discuss withdrawing judicial duties from Justice Varma in light of emerging developments.

March 21, 2025: Then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, seeks information from the police regarding the security detail at Varma’s residence and requests call records.

March 21, 2025: The Allahabad High Court Bar Association writes a letter strongly opposing Justice Varma’s proposed transfer, asking whether the High Court had become a “trash bin” for “corrupt” judges.

March 22, 2025: A three-member inquiry committee is constituted by CJI Sanjiv Khanna to probe the incident and Justice Varma’s role.

March 22, 2025: Justice Upadhyay’s preliminary inquiry report is made public, along with the Commissioner of Police's report, Justice Varma’s reply, and a list of questions regarding the source and movement of the cash. The report concludes that a deeper probe is warranted.

March 22, 2025: In his written response, Justice Varma denies any recovery or seizure of cash, stating that the storeroom was accessible to guards and security personnel, and that no family members were involved in moving any material post-fire.

March 24, 2025: The Supreme Court Collegium finalizes the transfer of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court.

March 24, 2025: A writ petition is filed in the Supreme Court seeking registration of an FIR and challenging the legality of the CJI-appointed three-member inquiry panel.

March 25, 2025: The Allahabad High Court Bar Association announces an indefinite strike to protest the transfer of Justice Varma to their court.

March 28, 2025: Justice Varma is formally transferred to the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court instructs the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC not to assign him judicial work pending further investigation.

May 3, 2025: The Supreme Court-appointed in-house panel finds Justice Varma guilty of misconduct and recommends his removal.

May 8, 2025: Then CJI Sanjiv Khanna writes to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recommending Justice Varma’s impeachment, after he refuses to resign voluntarily.

Justice Varma’s Response

In his petition, he alleged that the probe panel acted unfairly, denied him a proper chance to defend himself, and drew adverse conclusions without concrete evidence.

He also challenged the recommendation made by former CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister seeking impeachment proceedings against him.

Read Also: Supreme Court Tells Woman IPS Officer to Issue Public Apology for False Cases