The unfolding saga surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma has escalated into one of the most consequential judicial controversies in recent Indian history, with implications for judicial accountability, constitutional procedure, and political consensus across party lines.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai announced that a special bench would soon be constituted to hear Justice Varma’s challenge against the findings of a three-judge in-house inquiry committee, which had indicted him following the discovery of a substantial amount of unexplained cash at his official residence. Justice Gavai recused himself from hearing the petition, citing his earlier involvement in internal discussions on the matter with former CJI Sanjiv Khanna.
The Background
In March 2025, bundles of cash were found in Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi after a fire led to emergency firefighting operations. This discovery triggered a high-level inquiry by an in-house committee comprising:
-
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana High Court),
-
Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and
-
Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court).
The committee examined over 50 witnesses and concluded that the cash was under the “covert or active control” of Justice Varma or his family. The judge allegedly failed to provide a convincing explanation and claimed he was being framed.
Following the report, Justice Varma was relieved of his judicial duties and sent back to the Allahabad High Court in April.
Legal Pushback and Supreme Court Petition
Justice Varma has now moved the Supreme Court, challenging the legality and procedure followed by the in-house panel. His counsel, Kapil Sibal, backed by legal heavyweights like Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sidharth Luthra, and others, argued:
-
There were violations of natural justice
-
Crucial video footage was ignored
-
Justice Varma was denied access to evidence
-
He was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses
Sibal stressed that the case involves significant constitutional issues, urging swift constitution of a special bench.
Impeachment Proceedings Begin
Meanwhile, impeachment proceedings have officially begun:
-
In the Lok Sabha, 152 MPs from across parties submitted a memorandum seeking Justice Varma’s removal.
-
In the Rajya Sabha, over 50 MPs signed a similar motion, received by then-Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, shortly before his resignation.
This bipartisan action is rare, with signatories including Rahul Gandhi, Anurag Thakur, Supriya Sule, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, KC Venugopal, and others — suggesting a political consensus on the seriousness of the charges.
Next Steps: Joint Inquiry Committee
As per the Judges Inquiry Act, both Houses are expected to form a three-member inquiry committee comprising:
-
A sitting Supreme Court judge
-
A Chief Justice of a High Court
-
An eminent jurist
Speaker Om Birla is likely to formally announce the committee next week. The panel's findings could set the stage for a full-fledged impeachment vote in Parliament during the next session.
Why This Matters
-
This is among the rare instances of a sitting judge facing impeachment in India.
-
Justice Varma’s legal challenge could define the contours of judicial discipline and procedural fairness.
-
The case has exposed unprecedented institutional friction, involving the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
-
The cross-party support for the motion may reflect broader concerns about public trust in the judiciary.
The outcome of this case—and the response from the judiciary—could redefine judicial accountability mechanisms for years to come.
