CJI to form Bench on Justice Varma’s petition against removal bid

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

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

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing by senior advocate Kapil Sibal before a Bench led by CJI Gavai. Sibal highlighted constitutional concerns and requested an early hearing. The CJI, noting his prior involvement in the process, stated, “We will take a call and constitute a Bench.”

An in-house committee comprising Punjab & Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman had indicted Justice Varma after a large sum of cash was found in the storeroom of his official residence. On May 8, then CJI Khanna recommended his removal to the President and PM, leading to removal notices being submitted in Parliament on Monday.

Justice Varma, however, argued that the committee failed to determine key facts such as the origin, ownership and authenticity of the cash, the cause of the fire and his alleged involvement in removing currency remnants. He criticised the inquiry for reversing the burden of proof, requiring him to disprove the allegations without sufficient 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”.