SC to form special bench as Justice Yashwant Varma challenges cash row inquiry

In a dramatic turn in the controversy surrounding allegations of unaccounted cash found at a sitting judge’s residence, the Supreme Court on July 23 said it would constitute a special bench to hear Justice Yashwant Varma’s petition challenging the constitutional validity of the in-house judicial inquiry that led to impeachment proceedings against him.

Justice Varma, a judge of the Allahabad High Court and formerly of the Delhi High Court, is facing an impeachment motion after a three-member panel confirmed charges of cash recovery from his official residence in New Delhi. The judge has called the in-house committee's mechanism “a parallel, extra-constitutional system” that he argues undermines the Constitution’s established process for the removal of judges.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. Sibal urged for urgent listing, citing serious constitutional concerns.

“I will have to constitute a bench. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to hear this matter, as I was part of discussions related to the issue,” said CJI Chandrachud, signaling the sensitive nature of the plea.

‘Parallel system bypassing Parliament’: Varma’s plea

In his petition filed on July 18, Justice Varma argued that the in-house mechanism — adopted through a 1999 Full Court Resolution to ensure judicial accountability — had overstepped its original mandate of internal fact-finding and strayed into unconstitutional territory.

“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,” the plea stated, referencing constitutional provisions that vest sole authority for the removal of judges with Parliament, via a special majority and due process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The plea further contended that such administrative processes “cannot override the constitutionally protected tenure” of High Court judges nor empower the Chief Justice of India with unchecked authority to determine the fate of fellow judges.

Justice Varma alleges media trial, reputational damage

The judge also questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to publicly release a video showing burnt currency notes allegedly recovered from his residence after a fire on March 14 — an act he termed “disproportionate and violative of law.”

According to him, the press release issued by the apex court on March 22 triggered an unwarranted media trial that has caused “irreparable damage” to his personal and professional reputation.

“The unprecedented public disclosure of unverified allegations… resulted in irreparable harm to the Petitioner’s career as a judicial officer,” his plea argued.

Challenge to panel findings

Justice Varma has also contested the conclusions of the inquiry report prepared by a three-member committee led by Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab and Haryana High Court), G S Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka High Court). The panel, constituted by the CJI shortly after the fire incident, found the allegations against Justice Varma to be credible.

Terming the process lacking in due procedure, Justice Varma has questioned all downstream actions, including the Chief Justice’s recommendation based on the report.

As the legal battle now shifts to the country’s highest court, the case pits a sitting High Court judge against the judiciary’s internal disciplinary machinery — opening an unprecedented debate on judicial accountability, constitutional safeguards, and institutional integrity.