Justice Yashwant Varma cash row: Supreme Court clears deck for judge's impeachment, says procedure 'not unconstitutional'
The top court said there was no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights, and upheld the legality of the in-house inquiry process.
- Aug 7, 2025,
- Updated Aug 7, 2025 12:53 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against an internal inquiry report that had recommended his removal after a large amount of cash was found at his home earlier this year. The top court said there was no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights, and upheld the legality of the in-house inquiry process.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih held that the formation of the in-house committee and the procedure it followed were not illegal.
“The CJI and the in-house committee scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video, and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then,” the Supreme Court was quoted as saying by India Today.
“The in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also said, “We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future.”
With this ruling, Parliament can now move forward with impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma had also contested the then Chief Justice of India’s recommendation to the President seeking his removal.
In an earlier hearing, the bench had asked why Justice Varma did not raise objections to the formation of the in-house panel at the very beginning if he believed it was unconstitutional. The judge, who filed the petition under the anonymous name ‘XXX’ to keep his identity hidden, argued that the inquiry was procedurally flawed and relied only on presumptive questions, without any formal complaint.
Responding to the judge’s claim that he wasn’t given a chance to be heard before the report was sent to the President, the court said that the procedure did not mandate such a hearing.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the committee had overstepped its mandate by recommending the judge’s removal, saying it was only meant to advise the Chief Justice. He warned that such actions could lead to the creation of an extra-constitutional system.
Responding to this, Justice Datta said, “We have said that the procedure has legal sanction. We have also held that it is not a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism.”
Stacks of cash, some over 1.5 feet high, were found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in Delhi after a fire broke out on March 14. The judge was not home at the time. A Supreme Court-appointed in-house panel later found “sufficient substance” in the allegations and concluded that Justice Varma and his family had active control over the room where the cash was recovered. The committee recommended his removal.
Following this, the Supreme Court transferred him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court and withdrew all judicial work assigned to him.
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Justice Yashwant Varma’s plea against an internal inquiry report that had recommended his removal after a large amount of cash was found at his home earlier this year. The top court said there was no violation of Justice Varma’s fundamental rights, and upheld the legality of the in-house inquiry process.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih held that the formation of the in-house committee and the procedure it followed were not illegal.
“The CJI and the in-house committee scrupulously followed the process except uploading photos and video, and we have said it was not required. But nothing turned on it because you did not challenge it then,” the Supreme Court was quoted as saying by India Today.
“The in-house procedure enjoys legal sanctity and is not a parallel mechanism outside the constitutional framework,” the court said.
The Supreme Court also said, “We have held that CJI sending letter to the Prime Minister and President was not unconstitutional. We have made certain observations where we have kept it open for you to raise proceedings if needed in the future.”
With this ruling, Parliament can now move forward with impeachment proceedings. Justice Varma had also contested the then Chief Justice of India’s recommendation to the President seeking his removal.
In an earlier hearing, the bench had asked why Justice Varma did not raise objections to the formation of the in-house panel at the very beginning if he believed it was unconstitutional. The judge, who filed the petition under the anonymous name ‘XXX’ to keep his identity hidden, argued that the inquiry was procedurally flawed and relied only on presumptive questions, without any formal complaint.
Responding to the judge’s claim that he wasn’t given a chance to be heard before the report was sent to the President, the court said that the procedure did not mandate such a hearing.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, argued that the committee had overstepped its mandate by recommending the judge’s removal, saying it was only meant to advise the Chief Justice. He warned that such actions could lead to the creation of an extra-constitutional system.
Responding to this, Justice Datta said, “We have said that the procedure has legal sanction. We have also held that it is not a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism.”
Stacks of cash, some over 1.5 feet high, were found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence in Delhi after a fire broke out on March 14. The judge was not home at the time. A Supreme Court-appointed in-house panel later found “sufficient substance” in the allegations and concluded that Justice Varma and his family had active control over the room where the cash was recovered. The committee recommended his removal.
Following this, the Supreme Court transferred him from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court and withdrew all judicial work assigned to him.