Cash at judge’s house: CJI Gavai to set up Bench to hear Justice Varma’s plea

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday said he will constitute a Bench to hear Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging an in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi during a fire incident on March 14 when he was away in Madhya Pradesh.

Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the May 8 recommendation by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and the Prime Minister for initiating the process for his removal was “unconstitutional and in breach of the established constitutional mechanism envisaged under Article 124 read with Article 218 of the Constitution of India.” He has also urged the top court to quash and set aside all consequential actions taken pursuant to the in-house committee’s final report dated May 3, 2025.

On Wednesday, the matter was mentioned for urgent listing by senior advocate Kapil Sibal before a Bench led by CJI Gavai. “We have raised some constitutional issues. I request your Lordships to list it as early as possible,” Sibal told the Bench.

Noting that it would not be proper for him to take up the matter as he was a part of the process, the CJI said, “We will take a call and constitute a Bench.”

An in-house committee consisting of Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court indicted Justice Varma for recovery of a huge stash of cash in the storeroom of his official residence in New Delhi.

On May 8, the then CJI Sanjiv Justice Khanna wrote to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal. On Monday, notices for his removal were submitted in both Houses of Parliament.

However, maintaining that the essential mandate of the committee was to discover the truth as to when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse; how much cash was placed in the outhouse; if the cash/currency genuine or not; the cause of the fire; and if he was in any manner responsible for the “removal” of “remnants of currency” on March 15, 2025,  Justice Varma assailed the in-house inquiry for reversing the burden of proof, requiring him to investigate and disprove the charges levelled against him.

“The mere discovery of cash provides no conclusive resolution. It remains essential to determine whose cash and how much was discovered. These aspects bear directly on the severity of the allegations, and equally, on the potential for orchestrated scandal; added to by the cause of the fire, whether intentional or accidental, and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged “removal” of the currency,” Justice Varma submitted.

Noting that the final report provided no answers to these pivotal questions, he questioned its substantive findings for being “untenable, based on unjustified inferences, not evidence.”

He also faulted the committee for violating principles of natural justice as it failed to notify him of the procedure devised by it and there was no mechanism for him to request or contribute inputs on evidence to be collected. There was lack of notice of charges or preliminary findings, denial of a personal hearing and selective disclosure of evidence, he contended.

Questioning the hurry on the part of the then CJI Khanna in endorsing the committee’s findings and conclusions on the same day, he pointed out that it was followed by a communication advising him to resign or seek voluntary retirement within an unduly restricted timeline (by 7 pm on May 6, 2025), failing which an action to initiate his “removal” would be initiated. “The Petitioner was denied any opportunity for a personal hearing, contrary to established precedents in similar cases,” he submitted.

Justice Varma contended that it was contrary to past practice and convention in implementation of the in-house procedure that envisaged a personal hearing before the CJI and other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before any advice was rendered to the judge concerned based upon the in-house committee report.

Raising questions over the in-house committee, he posed several questions of law for the consideration of the top court. Justice Varma urged the court to examine if the Constitution conceived, sanctioned, or can be interpreted as empowering the judicial institution to play any role in initiating proceedings for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a high court. He also wanted the top court to consider if initiation of proceedings for removal of a high court judge at the behest of the judicial institution violated the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.

“The integrity of the entire judicial institution is undermined when Judges, who are entrusted with upholding justice, face procedurally flawed inquiries. Without adequate protections, such a process risks arbitrary outcomes, eroding public confidence and violating the very principles of fairness that the judiciary is meant to embody,” Justice Varma submitted.

He said “media leaks of the Final Report’s contents, followed by distorted reportage of the Committee’s findings, were left unaddressed, perpetuating procedural unfairness, breaching the confidentiality inherent to the In- House Procedure, and continuing to inflict irreversible harm on the Petitioner’s reputation and dignity.”

“Primarily, 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,” Justice Varma said.

However, “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”.