Your conduct does not inspire confidence: Supreme Court to Justice Yashwant Varma

Noting that his conduct didn’t inspire confidence, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on Allahabad Judge Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging an in-house inquiry committee report that indicted him for recovery of unaccounted cash at his official residence here during a fire incident on March 14.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih reserved its verdict after hearing senior counsel Kapil Sibal—representing the beleaguered judge – who contended that the in-house inquiry committee’s recommendation for his removal was unconstitutional.

Sibal said the then CJI’s recommendation of proceedings for removal of Justice Varma in this manner would set a dangerous precedent.

“The in-house procedure is limited to recommendation or advice and not power to initiate removal proceedings. The in-house process was formulated as part of administrative powers and does not have binding authority,” Sibal argued.

However, the Bench said if the CJI has material to believe that there’s misconduct by a judge, he can inform the President and the Prime Minister.

“The Chief Justice of India is not just a post office. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the Judiciary. If materials come to him regarding misconduct (of a judge), the CJI has the duty to forward (the same) to the President and the Prime Minister,” the Bench said.

Noting that Justice Varma’s conduct didn’t inspire confidence, the Bench questioned him for seeking invalidation of the in-house inquiry report that indicted him for misconduct and wondered why he appeared before the panel and didn’t challenge it then.

“Your conduct does not inspire confidence. Your conduct says a lot. You were waiting for favourable findings and once you found it to be unpalatable, you came here. Under Article 32, conduct is also relevant,” the Bench noted.

The Bench, however, agreed with Sibal that videos showing burning of cash currencies should not have been leaked during the procedure “We are with you on this. It should not have been leaked,” Justice Datta said.

During the July 28 hearing, the Bench had asked Justice Varma, “Why did you appear before the (in-house) inquiry committee? Did you come to the court to have the video removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?”

“That cannot be held against me. I appeared because I thought the committee would find out who the cash belonged to,” Sibal had told the Bench.

Following his indictment by the in-house committee report on May 3, 2025, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had on May 8 written to the President and the Prime Minister recommending Justice Varma’s removal.

However, contending that Justice Khanna’s recommendation was in breach of the established constitutional mechanism envisaged under Article 124 read with Article 218 of the Constitution, Justice Varma had urged the top court to quash and set aside all consequential actions taken pursuant to the in-house committee’s May 3 final report.

“If cash has been found in the outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to be held? There is no allegation of behaviour, forget misbehaviour?” Sibal had asked on Monday.

However, the Bench had said the petitioner neither denied the presence of cash nor the fire incident.